linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2] execve.2: SYNOPSIS: Document both glibc wrapper and kernel sycalls

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, 19 Feb 2021 13:39:55 +0100
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:     Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     mtk.manpages@...il.com, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
        libc-alpha@...rceware.org, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] execve.2: SYNOPSIS: Document both glibc wrapper and
 kernel sycalls

Hey Alex,

On 2/18/21 4:13 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Until now, the manual pages have (usually) documented only either
> the glibc (or another library) wrapper for a syscall, or the
> kernel syscall (this only when there's not a wrapper).
> 
> Let's document both prototypes, which many times are slightly
> different.  This will solve a problem where documenting glibc
> wrappers implied shadowing the documentation for the raw syscall.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@...il.com>

This patch also changes madvise.2, I suppose accidentally.

I'm still not sure whether I consider this change worthwhile
for cases like this where the differences between the libc
wrapper and the syscall are minor enough to probably
be irrelevant to user-space programmers. But, if we do
add something like this, I thing a sentence or two
of English is desirable as well. Something like

   The kernel system call differs slightly from the glibc
   wrapper, in the addition of 'const' to two parameter
   declarations:
    
        syscall(...)

But, before we go down this track, I'd like to get a sense 
of how many cases there are like this where there are these
small differences between the glibc wrapper and the syscall
interface. I'm not meaning you should check every system call
now.  But maybe you can let me know something like: of the first
20 system calls I checked, there X system calls that had 
such differences.

Thanks,

Michael

> ---
>  man2/execve.2     | 15 +++++++++++++--
>  man2/membarrier.2 | 14 +++++---------
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man2/execve.2 b/man2/execve.2
> index 027a0efd2..318c71c85 100644
> --- a/man2/execve.2
> +++ b/man2/execve.2
> @@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ execve \- execute program
>  .nf
>  .B #include <unistd.h>
>  .PP
> -.BI "int execve(const char *" pathname ", char *const " argv [],
> -.BI "           char *const " envp []);
> +.BI "int execve(const char *" pathname ",
> +.BI "           char *const " argv "[], char *const " envp []);
>  .fi
>  .SH DESCRIPTION
>  .BR execve ()
> @@ -772,6 +772,17 @@ Thus, this argument list was not directly usable in a further
>  .BR exec ()
>  call.
>  Since UNIX\ V7, both are NULL.
> +.SS C library/kernel differences
> +.RS 4
> +.nf
> +/* Kernel system call: */
> +.BR "#include <sys/syscall.h>" "        /* For " SYS_* " constants */"
> +.B #include <unistd.h>
> +.PP
> +.BI "int syscall(SYS_execve, const char *" pathname ,
> +.BI "            const char *const " argv "[], const char *const " envp []);
> +.fi
> +.RE
>  .\"
>  .\" .SH BUGS
>  .\" Some Linux versions have failed to check permissions on ELF
> diff --git a/man2/membarrier.2 b/man2/membarrier.2
> index 173195484..25d6add77 100644
> --- a/man2/membarrier.2
> +++ b/man2/membarrier.2
> @@ -28,13 +28,12 @@ membarrier \- issue memory barriers on a set of threads
>  .SH SYNOPSIS
>  .nf
>  .PP
> -.B #include <linux/membarrier.h>
> +.BR "#include <linux/membarrier.h>" "   /* For " MEMBARRIER_* " constants */"
> +.BR "#include <sys/syscall.h>" "        /* For " SYS_* " constants */"
> +.B #include <unistd.h>
>  .PP
> -.BI "int membarrier(int " cmd ", unsigned int " flags ", int " cpu_id );
> +.BI "int syscall(SYS_membarrier, int " cmd ", unsigned int " flags ", int " cpu_id );
>  .fi
> -.PP
> -.IR Note :
> -There is no glibc wrapper for this system call; see NOTES.
>  .SH DESCRIPTION
>  The
>  .BR membarrier ()
> @@ -295,7 +294,7 @@ was:
>  .PP
>  .in +4n
>  .EX
> -.BI "int membarrier(int " cmd ", int " flags );
> +.BI "int syscall(SYS_membarrier, int " cmd ", int " flags );
>  .EE
>  .in
>  .SH CONFORMING TO
> @@ -322,9 +321,6 @@ Examples where
>  .BR membarrier ()
>  can be useful include implementations
>  of Read-Copy-Update libraries and garbage collectors.
> -.PP
> -Glibc does not provide a wrapper for this system call; call it using
> -.BR syscall (2).
>  .SH EXAMPLES
>  Assuming a multithreaded application where "fast_path()" is executed
>  very frequently, and where "slow_path()" is executed infrequently, the
> 


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/