linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/36] x86/ioport: add ksys_ioperm() helper; remove in-kernel calls to sys

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

Date:   Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:45:54 +0100
From:   Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, luto@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/36] x86/ioport: add ksys_ioperm() helper; remove
 in-kernel calls to sys_ioperm()

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:00:48PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> 
> > Using this helper allows us to avoid the in-kernel calls to the sys_ioperm()
> > syscall.
> > 
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
> > Cc: x86@...nel.org
> > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
> 
> Please add a few lines explaining the ksys_ prefix as you did in your reply
> to Christoph. Other than that:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

Thanks! The commit message now reads

	Using this helper allows us to avoid the in-kernel calls to the sys_ioperm()
	syscall. The ksys_ prefix denotes that this function is meant as a drop-in
	replacement for the syscall. In particular, it uses the same calling
	convention as sys_ioperm().

Does that sound OK?

Thanks,
	Dominik