linux-kernel - Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()

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:	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:13:53 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
CC:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...savvy.com,
	drepper@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	munroesj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()

On 03/15/2010 06:44 AM, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> 
> Syscall is most often used for new syscalls that have no syscall stub in
> glibc yet, so the user of syscall() encodes this ABI knowledge.  If at a
> later stage syscall() is changed to have this sort of knowledge we break
> the API.  This is something only the kernel can get right.
> 

One option would be to do a libkernel.so, with auto-generated stubs out
of the kernel build tree.  As already discussed in #kernel this morning,
there are a number of sticky points with types and namespaces for this
this, but those aren't any worse than the equivalent problems for
syscall(3).

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/