linux-kernel - Re: Cleaning up numbering for new x86 syscalls?

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:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:23:50 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>, carlos@...hat.com,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: Cleaning up numbering for new x86 syscalls?

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:35 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:03 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Andy Lutomirski:
> >
> > > 5. Adjust the scripts so that we only have to wire up new syscalls
> > > once.  They'll have a nr above 1024, and they'll have the same nr on
> > > all x86 variants.
> >
> > Is there a sufficiently sized gap on all other architectures as well?
> > The restriction to the x86 variants seems arbitrary to me.
> >
>
> Fair point.  We have this shiny "generic" syscall list.  Maybe we can
> get x86 synced up with it for new syscalls.

The generic table is already a subset of the x86 tables, so there
should be no need to sync up the contents.

It's more critical on other architectures that currently lack a number
of the syscalls that got added in asm-generic and x86 recently,
so I'd like to synchronize these all and add the missing calls
to ensure that each architecture has at least all the calls from
asm-generic table.

After that,  I would hope to come up with a way to add future numbers
to all tables together, either using the same numbers everywhere (plus
an offset where necessary, e.g. mips), or even have an include file
logic so we only need a single file for future additions.

Note: for y2038, we will have to add around 20 to 25 syscalls to each
32-bit architecture, plus another 10 for those that lack the separate
sys_ipc calls.

      Arnd