| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:12:27 +0000 From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...nvz.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drepper@...hat.com Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.21 On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 22:03 +0000, Russell King wrote: > > Is that actually written anywhere, and does anyone bother to check? > > Mostly mailing list archives I'd guess. As far as anyone bothering > to check, that's me when I'm aware of new syscalls... which typically > happens a long time after the syscalls have been introduced on x86 > etc. I suspect we could do with a Documentation/syscalls.txt collecting such rules from various architectures. We could _also_ do with a way to warn about unimplemented syscalls on any given architecture. I'm thinking about something along the lines of a kernel/syscalls.c containing nothing but... #include <asm/unistd.h> #ifndef __NR_sys_foo #warning The sys_foo system call is not implemented on this architecture #endif Ideally, that wants to be auto-generated from the union of all <asm-*/unistd.h> files, but in practice I suspect we could do it just from <asm-i386/unistd.h>. Even I usually manage to add new syscalls on i386 after I've done PowerPC. -- dwmw2 - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists