linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] tools/nolibc: replace duplicated -ENOSYS return with single -ENOSYS return

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: <ZO2QWPYpo1fdXjX+@1wt.eu>
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2023 08:29:44 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>
Cc:     Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>, arnd@...db.de,
        david.laight@...lab.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, tanyuan@...ylab.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] tools/nolibc: replace duplicated -ENOSYS return with
 single -ENOSYS return

Hi all,

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:17:19AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> To be honest I don't see a problem with the current aproach.
> It is very obvious what is going on, the same pattern is used by other
> projects and the "overhead" is very small.
> 
> 
> It seems the macros will only work for simple cases which only test the
> availability of a single syscall number.
> 
> Of these we currently only have:
> gettimeofday(), lseek(), statx(), wait4()
> 
> So in it's current form we save 4 * 4 = 16 lines of code.
> The proposed solution introduces 14 + 2 (empty) = 16 lines of new code,
> and a bunch of mental overhead.
> 
> In case multiple underlying syscalls can be used these take different
> arguments which a simple macro won't be able to encode sanely.

I totally agree, I would prefer all this to be manageable by humans with
no preprocessor brain implant as much as possible as well.

Thanks,
Willy