linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:20:47 +0100
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:	arnd@...db.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com,
	pinskia@...il.com, agraf@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org,
	joseph@...esourcery.com, christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com,
	Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, klimov.linux@...il.com,
	bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic
 headers

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:23:50PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:51:40AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:12PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h b/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..a920cbc
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
> > > +#ifndef _LINUX_SYSCALL_STRUCTS_H
> > > +#define _LINUX_SYSCALL_STRUCTS_H
> > > +
> > > +struct epoll_event;
> > > +struct iattr;
> > > +struct inode;
> > > +struct iocb;
> > > +struct io_event;
> > > +struct iovec;
> > > +struct itimerspec;
> > > +struct itimerval;
> > 
> > This is not needed for s390, right? So might be worth a separate patch
> > which moves the forward declarations?
> 
> This patch also introduces __SC_WRAP, not needed as well. The idea of
> this patch is to introduce all the tricky machinery at once. If you
> think we need split it, I'm OK, but maybe it's enough to add more
> detailed description... What do you think?

Ok, I see. Then the only change I'd like to request is to update the
comment in front of the COMPAT_SYSCALL_WRAPx macro which talks about 33/31
bit pointer sizes. This doesn't make too much sense for common code :)