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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:33:24 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Munroe <munroesj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()

On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 15:04 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> There are several problems with syscall(), not just this - because a
> number of system calls in section 2 of the manual don't map directly
> to kernel syscalls with the same function prototype.
> 
> Even fork() has become something complicated in Glibc that doesn't use
> the fork syscall :-(
> 
> So anything using syscall() has to be careful on Linux already.
> Changing the 64-bit alignment won't fix the other differences. 

It won't fix -all- the problems with syscall(), but it will fix a wagon
of them without breaking existing code that already does the arch
specific breakup on the call site...

Cheers,
Ben.



--
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/