linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: use the correct function type for __arm64_sys_ni

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:   Tue, 7 May 2019 11:32:27 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: use the correct function type for
 __arm64_sys_ni_syscall

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 06:25:12PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I strongly think that we cant to fix up the common definition in
> kernel/sys_ni.c rather than having a point-hack in arm64. Other
> architectures (e.g. x86, s390) will want the same for CFI, and I'd like
> to ensure that our approached don't diverge.

s390 already has the following in arch/s390/kernel/sys_s390.c:

  SYSCALL_DEFINE0(ni_syscall)
  {
        return -ENOSYS;
  }

Which, I suppose, is cleaner than calling sys_ni_syscall.

> I took a quick look, and it looks like it's messy but possible to fix
> up the core.

OK. How would you propose fixing this?

Sami