linux-kernel - [RFC]: Convention for naming syscall revisions

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 17:42:25 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC]: Convention for naming syscall revisions

Hey everyone,

I hope this is not going to start a trash fire.

While working on a new clone version I tried to find out what the
current naming conventions for syscall revisions is. I was told and
seemed to be able to confirm through the syscall list that revisions of
syscalls are for the most part (for examples see [1]) named after the
number of arguments and not for the number of revisions. But some also
seem to escape that logic (e.g. clone2).

In any case, I would like to document *a* convention for syscall
revisions on https://www.kernel.org/doc/ . So what shall it be:
- number of args
- number of revision
?

Christian

[1]: - accept4(/* 4 args */)
     - dup2(/* 2 args */)
     - dup3(/* 3 args */)
     - eventfd2(/* 2 args */)
     - pipe2(/* 2 args */)
     - pselect6(/* 6 args, including structs */)
     - signalfd4(/* 4 args, one of them a struct */)
     - umount2(/* 2 args */)
     - wait3(/* 3 args, one of them a struct */)
     - wait4(/* 4 args, one of them a struct */)