linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 29/29] y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures

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: <CAK8P3a2sMgHWpSV8OAa7LCo6oQiQ4xd5WQHKJ1-tN0TV8uRDHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:37:12 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 29/29] y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> I have a patch that I'll send soon to make x32 use its own table.  As
> far as I'm concerned, 547 is *it*.  548 is just a normal number and is
> not special.  But let's please not reuse 512..547 for other purposes
> on x86 variants -- that way lies even more confusion, IMO.

(trimming Cc list, as this is getting a little off-topic most most)

Just so I understand: do you mean duplicating the .tbl file, or just
the resulting table of entry points?

In either way, how will that work with the new io_uring_setup()
system call that will have to use the compat entry point?
Are you planning to use the same syscall number as x86_64
but point it to the compat function, or do we still need a new
syscall number for x32 in the regular range?

       Arnd