linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] tools/nolibc: reduce __nolibc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250823102855.GA21208@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2025 12:28:55 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] tools/nolibc: reduce __nolibc_enosys() fallbacks

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 05:40:31PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> The __nolibc_enosys() fallback is used when the UAPI headers do not
> provide a certain syscall number or any possible fallback syscall.
> This is either because the syscall definition is fairly new and nolibc
> tries to be compatible with old UAPI headers or an architecture does not
> support a syscall at all.
> Many of these __nolibc_enosys() fallbacks have become unnecessary.
> Either because the "new" syscalls or not so new anymore or real
> fallbacks have been implemented in the meantime.
> 
> Unnecessary usages of __nolibc_enosys() as it is not obvious anymore if
> a given function is really implemented on all architectures.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>

OK I reviewed it all and it's fine for me. Please note in patch 1's
commit message, s/where added/were added/ :-)

For the whole series:
  Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>

Thanks,
Willy