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  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:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 21:43:16 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <>,
        Kees Cook <>, X86 ML <>,
        LKML <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 05:27:40PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Sami Tolvanen <> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Andy Lutomirski <> 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?
> > 
> I don’t see why all syscalls except these  few should have error injection
> hooked up.  It’s also IMO nicer from a maintenance perspective to have all
> syscalls use the same macros.
> Will, is there something I’m missing?

There was a reasonable request from Mark (CC'd) not to allow error injection
for unimplemented system calls, so that's why we took the approach that we
did. There was also a vague plan to fix this for everybody [1] but evidently
nobody found the time :(



Powered by blists - more mailing lists