linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree

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: <20190121191306.ifga5aw5atu2vvb7@brauner.io>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:13:07 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:40 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got conflicts in:
> >
> >   arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> >   include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   10a9a4dd92e6 ("arch: add split IPC system calls where needed")
> >   b1788424aa2e ("y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures")
> >
> > from the y2038 tree and commit:
> >
> >   3d2991bc7a67 ("signal: add pidfd_send_signal() syscall")
> >
> > from the pidfd tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> >  +385   i386    io_pgetevents           sys_io_pgetevents_time32        __ia32_compat_sys_io_pgetevents
> >   386   i386    rseq                    sys_rseq                        __ia32_sys_rseq
> > + 387   i386    pidfd_send_signal       sys_pidfd_send_signal           __ia32_sys_pidfd_send_signal
> >  +# room for arch specific syscalls
> >  +393   i386    semget                  sys_semget                      __ia32_sys_semget
> >  +394   i386    semctl                  sys_semctl                      __ia32_compat_sys_semctl
> 
> >   #define __NR_kexec_file_load 294
> >   __SYSCALL(__NR_kexec_file_load,     sys_kexec_file_load)
> > - /* 295 through 402 are unassigned to sync up with generic numbers */
> > + #define __NR_pidfd_send_signal 295
> > + __SYSCALL(__NR_pidfd_send_signal, sys_pidfd_send_signal)
> > ++/* 296 through 402 are unassigned to sync up with generic numbers */
> >  +#if __BITS_PER_LONG == 32
> >  +#define __NR_clock_gettime64 403
> >  +__SYSCALL(__NR_clock_gettime64, sys_clock_gettime)
> 
> If we merge my patches, then any other system calls should get numbers
> above 423 on all architectures. Part of what I did in my branch was to
> add all missing calls on architectures, and then move up to a common
> number for the newly added ones. Your merge works correctly, but
> it works against that idea by adding new numbers that conflict with
> existing ones on other architectures, e.g. 387 is already assigned
> on arm, microblaze, powerpc, and sh, and 294 is assigned almost
> everywhere other than the asm-generic version.

Hey Arnd,

I plan on sending the pidfd branch with the new pidfd_send_signal()
syscall for the 5.1 window. Should we somehow coordinate so that our
branches don't conflict? Any suggestions?

Christian