linux-kernel - Re: New syscalls (was: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree (now block and tip trees))

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, 11 Mar 2019 22:43:08 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New syscalls (was: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd
 tree with the y2038 tree (now block and tip trees))

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:38:07PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:36 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:22 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:22 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:10:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got conflicts in:
> > > > >
> > > > >   arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> > > > >   arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > > > >   include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
> > > > >
> > > > > between commits:
> > > > >
> > > > >   63a96220ad45 ("arch: add split IPC system calls where needed")
> > > > >   0bd4bb9c5612 ("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.
> > > >
> > > > This is now a conflict between the block, tip and pidfd trees.  The
> > > > resolution now looks like below.
> > >
> > > Checked it again, still looks good. Thanks,
> >
> > What's the plan with adding new syscalls to all architectures?
> >
> >   + <stdin>: warning: #warning syscall io_uring_enter not implemented
> > [-Wcpp]:  => 1481:2
> >   + <stdin>: warning: #warning syscall io_uring_register not
> > implemented [-Wcpp]:  => 1484:2
> >   + <stdin>: warning: #warning syscall io_uring_setup not implemented
> > [-Wcpp]:  => 1478:2
> >
> > and more seem to be planned for this merge window.
> >
> > Shall each architcture maintainer take care of this hxxself, or will
> > this be done in
> > a coordinated way?
> 
> I was planning to send a patch for all architectures this time
> (after all three sets are merged, which is now), and ask future

Just to clarify, are you referring to your sets? I think Linus hasn't
gotten around to reviewing the PR for pidfd_send_signal() yet. :)

Christian

> submitters to do it themselves when first adding a new system
> call.
> 
>        Arnd