linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

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: <CAMuHMdXX31xZ4AS6FbeXLXgDn5UV5=0C3hrihuwDOP_abuJsBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:54:50 +0200
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho 
	<tuliom@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>,
	Cosimo Cecchi <cosimo@...lessm.com>,
	Dan Nicholson <nicholson@...lessm.com>,
	libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan <raji@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Friday 11 September 2015 10:24:29 Heiko Carstens wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, the s390 approach (ignoring the "new" system calls) is only temporarily.
>> I'll enable the seperate calls later when I have time to test everything,
>> especially the glibc stuff.
>
> Ok, thanks for clarifying.
>
>> The same is true for the ipc system call. (any reason why the seperate system
>> calls haven't been enabled on x86 now as well?)
>
> Agreed, we should split that out on all architectures as well.
> Almost the same set of architectures that have sys_socketcall also
> have sys_ipc, and the reasons for changing are identical. I don't
> think we have any other system calls that are handled like this
> on some architectures but not on others. There are a couple of
> system calls (e.g. futex) that are also multiplexers, but at
> least they do it consistently.

To make sure I don't miss any (it seems I missed recvmmsg and sendmmsg for
the socketcall case, sigh), this is the list of ipc syscalls to implement?

    sys_msgget
    sys_msgctl
    sys_msgrcv
    sys_msgsnd
    sys_semget
    sys_semctl
    sys_semtimedop
    sys_shmget
    sys_shmctl
    sys_shmat
    sys_shmdt

sys_semop() seems to be unneeded because it can be implemented using
sys_semtimedop()?

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/