linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch: avr32: add dummy syscalls

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:	Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:35:39 -0800
From:	Håvard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: avr32: add dummy syscalls

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 08:52:18PM -0800, H?vard Skinnemoen wrote:
>
>> You're right on -- in this case, the compiler will skip r10, and do
>> (r12, r11, r8:r9, stack). We pass the syscall number in r8, but we
>> also unconditionally move r7 to r8 in the syscall path, so it
>> shouldn't matter (libc does the opposite when necessary).
>>
>> I remember some talk about having the compiler reuse r10 for the next
>> 32-bit argument in cases like this, but I don't think it ever
>> happened.
>
> Umm...  In case of fallocate() the next argument is 64bit one, though;
> sys_fallocate() will be looking for two 32bit words on stack, so no
> matter how do we pass them to syscall, we'd better push two words in
> the wrapper.

Right.

> But yes, 32bit/32bit/64bit/32bit is another interesting case -
> fanotify_mark is 32/32/64/32/32.  From what ABI says it would seem to
> be r12/r11/r8:r9/r10/stack, but if I understand you correctly, we'll
> end up wanting *two* arguments on stack...

Yes, I think there may be a difference between the IAR and gcc ABI
here. But I could be wrong.

Havard
--
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/