linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mips: add system call table generation support

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]

Date:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:00:28 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        "open list:RALINK MIPS ARCHITECTURE" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin.juszkiewicz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mips: add system call table generation support

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 7:15 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> The system call tables are in different format in all
> architecture and it will be difficult to manually add,
> modify or delete the syscall table entries in the res-
> pective files. To make it easy by keeping a script and
> which will generate the uapi header and syscall table
> file. This change will also help to unify the implemen-
> tation across all architectures.

This looks great to me, just one question:

> +# The <abi> is always "64" for this file.
> +#
> +0      64      read                            sys_read
> +1      64      write                           sys_write

What is the reason for using '64', 'n32', and 'o32' respectively in
the ABI field
but use 'common' in other architectures that have a table of entries that are
all for the same architecture?

       Arnd