linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V9 05/21] csky: System Call

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: <20181018020203.GA12027@guoren-Inspiron-7460>
Date:   Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:02:04 +0800
From:   Guo Ren <ren_guo@...ky.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, c-sky_gcc_upstream@...ky.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 05/21] csky: System Call

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 05:02:33PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 5:01 AM Guo Ren <ren_guo@...ky.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch adds files related to syscall.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <ren_guo@...ky.com>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> I had a detailed look at this one and provided lots of comments, however
> one tiny thing escaped me:
> 
> > +#define __NR_set_thread_area   (__NR_arch_specific_syscall + 0)
> > +__SYSCALL(__NR_set_thread_area, sys_set_thread_area)
> > +#define __NR_cacheflush                (__NR_arch_specific_syscall + 4)
> > +__SYSCALL(__NR_cacheflush, sys_cacheflush)
> 
> It's odd that the second one uses __NR_arch_specific_syscall + 4 rather
> than +1. If you can still change that changing too much other stuff,
> that might avoid some head-scratching later. If it causes problems,
> just leave it and maybe add a comment saying that the numbers
> inbetween are still available.
Change to (__NR_arch_specific_syscall + 1) is ok for now.

Best Regards
 Guo Ren