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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8bd0f97a1003040951x52b0a2e5m8b724245ab773436@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:51:49 -0500
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To:	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>
Cc:	Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unimplemented syscalls on Alpha

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:53, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Michael Cree 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 already out of date.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?

typically if the sys_xxx entry is in common code, you dont need to
implement arch-specific stuff.  just hook them up in the system call
table.  afaik, preadv/pwritev fall into this category.

> 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).

correct ... and breaking the ABI is unacceptable
-mike
--
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/