| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <f8b2ccd40707060855o33f1db48v2139ed909e774066@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:55:27 -0700 From: "Gautam Singaraju" <gautam.singaraju@...il.com> To: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: syscall macro fails upon compilation I am surprised that syscalls have been removed. Anyway, I plan to write a device node with read and write functions just so that I can call a method from a user space. What are my other choices? -- Gautam On 06 Jul 2007 13:53:41 +0200, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes: > > > Gautam Singaraju wrote: > > > I use the _syscall0 macro. > > > > Don't. The _syscall*() macros have been unsupported for ages, > > That's not true. I supported them on x86 before they were removed against > my objections. > > > and broken for ever longer. > > Well, most syscall() versions get 6 argument calls wrong > (not sure if that is finally fixed). _syscall*() didn't support > -fPIC for larger argument counts (_syscall0-2 never had a problem) > > So all alternatives short of writing your own stub had various > issues. If you needed 6 argument calls _syscall* was typically > the best alternative. > > -Andi > -- --- Gautam - 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