linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Add script to add/remove/rename/renumber syscalls and resolve conflicts

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:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:18:07 -1000
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Add script to add/remove/rename/renumber syscalls and
 resolve conflicts

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:27 AM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Add a script that simplifies the process of altering system call tables in
> the kernel sources.  It has five functions available:

Ugh, I hate it.

I'm sure the script is all kinds of clever and useful, but I really
think the solution is not this kind of helper script, but simply that
we should work at not having each architecture add new system calls
individually in the first place.

IOW, we should look at having just one unified table for new system
call numbers, and aim for the per-architecture ones to be for "legacy
numbering".

Maybe that won't happen, but in the _hope_ that it happens, I really
would prefer that people not work at making scripts for the current
nasty situation.

                 Linus