linux-kernel - Re: X32 project status update

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: <BANLkTin+fgYpZ1LwNXg2OKeQJattLqQBhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 22 May 2011 13:02:08 -0700
From:	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To:	"Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
Cc:	"x32-abi@...glegroups.com" <x32-abi@...glegroups.com>,
	"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>,
	"libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: X32 project status update

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:48 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Anvin, H Peter <h.peter.anvin@...el.com> wrote:
>> I'll look at it but possibly not until the weekend.
>
> I checked it into hjl/x32/syscall branch at
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/hjl/linux-2.6.38.y.git;a=summary
>

We need to investigate if we need to have different x32 syscalls for

        .quad sys32_fanotify_mark
        .quad compat_sys_open_by_handle_at
        .quad compat_sys_clock_adjtime
        .quad compat_sys_sendmmsg       /* 345 */

My guess is yes for the last 3 and unsure for fanotify_mark.

H.J.
> ---
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: H.J. Lu [hjl.tools@...il.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> To: Anvin, H Peter
>> Cc: x32-abi@...glegroups.com; Arnd Bergmann; GCC Development; GNU C Library;
>> LKML
>> Subject: Re: X32 project status update
>>
>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM, H. Peter Anvin
>> <h.peter.anvin@...el.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/21/2011 09:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday 21 May 2011 17:01:33 H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>>> This is the x32 project status update:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've had another look at the kernel patch. It basically
>>>>>> looks all good, but the system call table appears to
>>>>>> diverge from the x86_64 list for no (documented) reason,
>>>>>> in the calls above 302. Is that intentional?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see why you might want to keep the numbers identical,
>>>>>> but if they are already different, why not use the generic
>>>>>> system call table from asm-generic/unistd.h for the new
>>>>>> ABI?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can sort it out when we start merging x32 kernel changes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter, is that possible to use the single syscall table for
>>>> both x86-64 and x32 system calls? Out of 300+ system
>>>> calls, only 84 are different for x86-64 and x32.  That
>>>> is additional 8*84 == 672 bytes in syscall table.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sort of... remember we talked about merging system calls at the tail
>>> end?  The problem with that is that some system calls (like read()!)
>>> actually are different system calls in very subtle situations, due to
>>> abuse in some subsystems of the is_compat() construct.  I think that may
>>> mean we have to have an unambiguous flag after all...
>>>
>>> Now, perhaps we can use a high bit for that and mask it before dispatch,
>>> then we don't need the additional table.  A bit of a hack, but it should
>>> work.
>>
>> How about this patch?
>>
>>    Merge x32 system calls with x86-64 system calls
>>
>>     Implemented with
>>
>>     1. Mark all x86-64 specific system calls with __NR_64_.
>>     2. Mark all x32 specific system calls with __NR_x32_.
>>     3. Include unistd_64_compat.h, instead of unistd_x32.h for kernel
>>     build, which provides __NR_ versions of x86-64 specific system calls.
>>     4. Append x32 specific system calls after the current x86-64 system
>>     calls.
>>     5. Generate unistd_x32.h from unistd_64.h, replacing __NR_x32_ with
>>     _NR_.
>>     6. Install user-space unistd_64.h, replacing __NR_64_ with _NR_.
>>
>> --
>> H.J.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> H.J.
>



-- 
H.J.
--
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/