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]

Message-Id: <20100314.225443.150715656.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	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()

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:18:33 +1100

> Or is there any good reason -not- to do that in glibc ?

The whole point of syscall() is to handle cases where the C library
doesn't know about the system call yet.

I think it's therefore very much "buyer beware".

On sparc it'll never work to use the workaround you're proposing since
we pass everything in via registers.

So arch knowledge will always need to be present in these situations.
--
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/