linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903272351110.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 23:52:19 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:29:16PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 03/23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > >  2) syscall_set_arguments() has been introduced in 2008 and we still have
> > > > >     no caller. Instead of polishing it, can it be removed completely or are
> > > > >     there plans to actually use it?
> > > > 
> > > > I think it can die.
> > > 
> > > When PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO is finally squeezed into the kernel,
> > > we could discuss adding PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO as well, and it
> > > will need syscall_set_arguments().
> > 
> > So if that ever happens, then adding the code back isn't rocket
> > science. But if not, then there is no point in carrying the dead horse
> > around another 11 years.
> 
> Given that it took me roughly 4 months to get a relatively simple revert
> of commit 5e937a9ae913 accepted into linux-next, adding the code back
> might be time-consuming.
> 
> Could we delay the removal of syscall_set_arguments() until
> PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO is merged into the kernel?
> I hope it won't take another 11 years.

Hope dies last :)

Seriously. If we keep it can we at least remove all the unused arguments
which we have on both functions to simplify the whole mess?

Thanks,

	tglx