[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903271527110.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 15:29:16 +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 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.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists