linux-kernel - Re: Unimplemented syscalls on Alpha

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]

Message-ID: <b4198de60910190853k54267f9flcf6453d6e23f6da3@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:53:25 -0400
From:	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>
To:	Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz>
Cc:	linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unimplemented syscalls on Alpha

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz> wrote:
> I couldn't but help notice the increasing number of unimplemented syscalls
> on the Alpha architecture.  I thought I might poke around to see what might
> be required to get these implemented and got a pleasant surprise when it
> seems some only need an entry in the syscall table.  Indeed, the patch in
> reply to this message gets preadv and pwritev going -- tested with the
> sample program at http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/6/535.

Cool. I was looking into doing this, but I didn't know how to test the syscalls.

I tried to keep a list of missing syscalls here,
http://alphalinux.org/wiki/index.php/TODO_List but as you can see it's
already out of date.

> I am happy to write patches to wire up more of the syscalls, but I am
> wondering which ones are as straightforward as the preadv/pwritev case?
> That is, do any require extra programming other than the syscall table?  Do
> I need to get the entries in the syscall table in the same order as other
> architectures?

I'm curious and unsure about this too. Patches would be great. I think
we should figure out who we need to CC to get patches into the kernel,
as neither of our maintainers have any sort of Alpha tree. I've
noticed a few patches submitted to this list have never made it into
the kernel, as well, maybe we should start an alpha tree?

The entries do not need to be in the same order of have the same
number as other architectures, just once you set the number you cannot
change it (without breaking the ABI).

Thanks Michael,
Matt
--
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/