[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1438070731-17764-1-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:05:30 +0100
From: David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
To: x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/1] UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs
A while ago I was trying to build a seccomp-bpf filter program that would
survive a change of x86 architecture. This was complicated for all sorts of
reasons, but one of the problems was that the different syscall numbers aren't
all available at the same time -- hence this patch.
Naming-wise, Andy Lutomirski has indicated he'd prefer the prefixes to be
__NR_x86_64_, __NR_x86_64_x32_ and __NR_i386_; however, for the latter two
sets of numbers there are existing headers that use different prefixes
(__NR_x32_ and __NR_ia32_), so altering those would involve a change and/or an
additional set of definitions. For the new constants I've left in my
original suggestion (__NR_amd64_) for the time being.
What are folks' thoughts about the preferred naming for these?
David Drysdale (1):
UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/Makefile | 11 ++++++++---
arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/Kbuild | 3 +++
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
2.4.3.573.g4eafbef
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists