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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 19:15:04 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "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 02:12:15 +0300
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org> wrote:

> > 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?  
> 
> In case of syscall_set_arguments() I think we can safely remove
> "i" and "n" arguments assuming i == 0 and n == 6.
> 
> All I can say about syscall_get_arguments() is that
> - all current users invoke it with i == 0,
> - all current users that invoke it with n != 6 are in kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c
> so it may actually be invoked with n < 6.

Yes, that's what my old (and current) patches address. I removed the
i,n parameters and make it 0,6 hardcoded in the routines.

Patches will be out soon.

-- Steve