linux-kernel - Why is the bit size different between a syscall and its wrapper?

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]

Message-ID: <CAK7LNAQYMKqixm8dVbbMvgt+=MEROSg-JG_kHS8T+xmrgeLABg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 11:48:11 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Why is the bit size different between a syscall and its wrapper?

Hi.

I think I am missing something, but
is there any particular reason to
use a different bit size between
a syscall and its userspace wrapper?

For example, for the unshare syscall,

unshare(2) says the parameter is int.

SYNOPSIS
       #define _GNU_SOURCE
       #include <sched.h>

       int unshare(int flags);

In the kernel, it is unsigned long.

SYSCALL_DEFINE1(unshare, unsigned long, unshare_flags)
{
        return ksys_unshare(unshare_flags);
}

I guess the upper 32-bit will be
zeroed out in the c library when
sizeof(int) != sizeof(unsigned long)
(i.e. 64-bit system), but I'd like to know
why we do it this way.

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada