linux-kernel - [RFC][3/11][MANUX] Kernel compatibility : syscall numbers

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <534D375B.9070806@manux.info>
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:42:51 +0200
From:	Emmanuel Colbus <ecolbus@...ux.info>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC][3/11][MANUX] Kernel compatibility : syscall numbers

Continuing the discussion regarding syscalls, I have a question
regarding vector 0x80.

As I mentionned earlier, my OS's internals are very different from
Linux's, thus I have had a need for a few new syscalls. Since I wanted
to avoid any collision with Linux, but I also wanted to keep the
ability to put the syscall table in a single 4096-byte page on 64-bit
computers (on which I hope to run one day), I chose to start taking
syscall number 511, and to progress downwards - currently, I'm using
numbers 511 through 501 included (with a hole at 503, but I'll likely
fill it again in the future).

Is this okay for you? And in this case, if this isn't asking too much,
could you avoid using them for now, to avoid any conflict?

Thank you!

Emmanuel
--
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/