[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <44631c05-6b8a-42dc-b37e-df6776baa5d4@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 14:57:31 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Miklos Szeredi" <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
"Karel Zak" <kzak@...hat.com>, "Ian Kent" <raven@...maw.net>,
"David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Alexander Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Christian Brauner" <christian@...uner.io>,
"Amir Goldstein" <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] add statmnt(2) syscall
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, at 17:22, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> asmlinkage long sys_fstatfs64(unsigned int fd, size_t sz,
> struct statfs64 __user *buf);
> +asmlinkage long sys_statmnt(u64 mnt_id, u64 mask,
> + struct statmnt __user *buf, size_t bufsize,
> + unsigned int flags);
This definition is problematic on 32-bit architectures for two
reasons:
- 64-bit register arguments are passed in pairs of registers
on two architectures, so anything passing those needs to
have a separate entry point for compat syscalls on 64-bit
architectures. I would suggest also using the same one on
32-bit ones, so you don't rely on the compiler splitting
up the long arguments into pairs.
- There is a limit of six argument registers for system call
entry points, but with two pairs and three single registers
you end up with seven of them.
The listmnt syscall in patch 3 also has the first problem,
but not the second.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists