linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] syscalls: define and explain goal to not call syscalls in the kernel

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, 30 Mar 2018 09:35:18 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, x86@...nel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] syscalls: define and explain goal to not call syscalls
 in the kernel

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 18:25:27 +0200
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net> wrote:

> As there have been multiple inquiries on the rationale of my patchsets
> removing in-kernel calls to sys_xyzzy(), here is an updated patch 01/NN
> which I will push upstream for v4.17-rc1. I will also include a reference
> to this mail (and therefore to the explanation below) in all related
> patches of the series. Any improvements, hints, suggestions, spelling
> fixes, and/or objections?

I have no objections to the text, but I do wonder about the placement.
The "adding syscalls" document isn't about *invoking* them; I suspect that
few people will see it there.  The coding-style document isn't quite right
either, but I wonder if it might not be a better place in the short term?

What we may really need is an "assorted rules" document that sits near
coding style; we can put stuff like this text, "volatile considered
harmful", and so on there.

Thanks,

jon