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:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:18:20 +0000
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, munroesj@...ibm.com,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...savvy.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Hence, apps that use the first form today because it works on x86 would
> end up working at least on powerpc where they would have been otherwise
> broken unless they used some arch specific #ifdef to do the second form.

I think what Ulrich is getting at is your change will break existing
code which already does:

#ifdef __powerpc__
	syscall(SYS_foo, 0, my_64bit_arg);
#else
	syscall(SYS_foo, my_64bit_arg);
#endif

I don't know of any such code, but it might be out there.

-- Jamie
--
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/