linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for 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:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:26:37 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> Should this be SYSCALL_DEFINE0?

It can be, and that would also fix the issue. However, it does result
in unnecessary error injection to be hooked up here, which is why
arm64 preferred to avoid the macro when I fixed it there. S390 uses
SYSCALL_DEFINE0 for this though and since sys_ni_syscall always
returns -ENOSYS, it shouldn't be a huge problem. Thoughts?

Sami