linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507300106590.3825@nanos>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 01:07:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>,
	"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip
 tree

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:12:56 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 04:00:15PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >  -359	i386	userfaultfd		sys_userfaultfd
> > > ++374	i386	userfaultfd		sys_userfaultfd
> > 
> > Do I understand correctly the syscall number of userfaultfd for x86
> > 32bit has just changed from 359 to 374? Appreciated that you CCed me
> > on such a relevant change to be sure I didn't miss it.
> > 
> > Then the below is needed as well.
> 
> I have added the below patch to linux-next from today.
> 
> > One related question: is it ok to ship kernels in production right now
> > with the userfaultfd syscall number 374 for x86 32bit ABI (after the
> > above change) and 323 for x86-64 64bit ABI, with these syscalls number
> > registered in linux-next or it may keep changing like it has just
> > happened? I refer only to userfaultfd syscalls of x86 32bit and x86-64
> > 64bit, not all other syscalls in linux-next.
> 
> These numbers are certainly not in any way official, they are just the
> result of my merge conflict fixup.  So, yes, they could change again if
> someone adds another new syscall to any tree but Andrew's.
> 
> > Of course, I know full well that the standard answer is no, and in
> > fact the above is an expected and fine change. In other words what I'm
> > really asking is if I wonder if I could get an agreement here that
> > from now on, the syscall number of userfaultfd for x86 32bit and
> > x86-64 64bit won't change anymore in linux-next and it's already
> > reserved just like if it was already upstream.
> 
> Like Thomas said, send a patch to the x86 maintainers.  I suspect (if
> the rest of the implementation needs to stay in Andrew's tree) that it
> could be a simple as a patch to the syscall tables using ni_syscall and
> a comment.  Thomas?

Yes, that's all it takes to reserve a syscall number.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/