[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cb25b144-a388-4535-869d-98220a601ebe@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:04:48 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka
<vbabka@...e.cz>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt
<palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
alistair.francis@....com, richard.henderson@...aro.org, jim.shu@...ive.com,
andybnac@...il.com, kito.cheng@...ive.com, charlie@...osinc.com,
atishp@...osinc.com, evan@...osinc.com, cleger@...osinc.com,
alexghiti@...osinc.com, samitolvanen@...gle.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 33/33] kselftest/riscv: kselftest for user mode cfi
On 10/3/24 05:03, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 05:18:36PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 10/1/24 10:06, Deepak Gupta wrote:
>
>>> +#ifndef __NR_prctl
>>> +#define __NR_prctl 167
>>> +#endif
>
>>> +#ifndef __NR_map_shadow_stack
>>> +#define __NR_map_shadow_stack 453
>
>> Why do we need to define these? Shouldn't including
>> asm-generic/unistd.h sufficient?
>
> We have this issue on arm64 as well, there's some issue with directly
> pulling in the asm header interfering with libc in some situation (I
> can't immediately figure out which situation or which libc to remind
> myself what it is though...) so we've got local defines like we do for
> the NT_ defines for ptrace. I see x86 is doing the same.
It would be nice to figure. There have been some issues reported due
to local defines - the test fails if the define happens to not match.
Does including <asm/unistd.h> fix the problem?
thanks,
-- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists