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: <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 already out of date.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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists