linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/mempolicy: Implement set_mempolicy2 and get

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 14:03:41 -0400
From:   Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc:     Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>,
        owner-linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        hpa@...or.com, arnd@...db.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/mempolicy: Implement set_mempolicy2 and
 get_mempolicy2 syscalls

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 02:30:08PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:54:56 -0400
> Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > index 1d6eee30eceb..ec54064de8b3 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > @@ -375,6 +375,8 @@
> >  451	common	cachestat		sys_cachestat
> >  452	common	fchmodat2		sys_fchmodat2
> >  453	64	map_shadow_stack	sys_map_shadow_stack
> > +454	common	set_mempolicy2		sys_set_mempolicy2
> > +455	common	get_mempolicy2		sys_get_mempolicy2
> >  

^^ this is the discrepency.  map_shadow_stack is at 453, so NR_syscalls
should already be 454, but map_shadow_stack has not be plumbed through
the rest of the kernel.

This needs to be addressed, but not in this RFC.

> >  #undef __NR_syscalls
> > -#define __NR_syscalls 453
> > +#define __NR_syscalls 456
> +3 for 2 additions?
> 

see above