linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/13] syscalls: compat: Fix the missing part for __SYSCALL

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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a38C500PhRP3BysRap-ajhU3NJ-KWJQnoGaCH7aV+xoJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Dec 2021 12:24:52 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
        gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        liush <liush@...winnertech.com>, Wei Fu <wefu@...hat.com>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>,
        Wang Junqiang <wangjunqiang@...as.ac.cn>,
        Wei Wu (吴伟) <lazyparser@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] syscalls: compat: Fix the missing part for __SYSCALL_COMPAT

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 12:16 PM Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 1:09 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:35 PM <guoren@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >  /* 295 through 402 are unassigned to sync up with generic numbers, don't use */
> > > -#if __BITS_PER_LONG == 32
> > > +#if defined(__SYSCALL_COMPAT) || __BITS_PER_LONG == 32
> > >  #define __NR_clock_gettime64 403
> > >  __SYSCALL(__NR_clock_gettime64, sys_clock_gettime)
> >
> > This part looks wrong, you expose clock_gettime64 to user space this way, both
> > in asm/unistd.h and in the table.
> >
>
> No, we only define __SYSCALL_COMPAT in compat_syscall_table.c. It
> won't be expose to user space, because there is no __SYSCALL_COMPAT.

Ok, it looks good then. It feels like we should have a macro to wrap this, but
in reality what we should actually do is to convert the entire file to the
more modern syscall.tbl format, so let's just stay with your version.

      Arnd