linux-kernel - Re: syscall macro fails upon compilation

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, 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/