linux-kernel - Re: Allocating sys_membarrier syscall number on other archs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:15:24 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Allocating sys_membarrier syscall number on other archs

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 04:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> The sys_membarrier patches you have in your tree target
> x86 32-64 and generic, but I did not allocate the system call
> number on other architectures to minimize the amount of
> collisions, and because I do not have all those architectures
> handy.
> 
> How would you recommend to proceed to allocate those ?
> 

I don't think you need to do anything.  You've provided the selftest
code for the arch maintainers and the arch maintainers will get
"membarrier not implemented" warnings each time they build a kernel. 
The idea is that when they have time they'll wire it up, run the tests
then ship it.

If you want to help that process along a bit you could send patches to
the arch maintainers along with instructions on how to test the
syscall.  The less work they have to do, the more likely they are
to do it ;)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/