netdev - Re: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40

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

Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 20:34:53 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40

On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:16:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar said:
> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> > My gut feel says we should really implement an
> > include/asm-generic/unistd-common.h to include all new system calls.
> >
> > That way there would be only one file to touch instead of 50. Certainly it
> > works for include/asm-generic/unistd.h for the architectures that use it. 
> > And all we really need is just a little abstraction on that concept.
>
> I suppose that could be tried, although in practice it would probably be
> somewhat complex due to the various compat syscall handling differences.

Can somebody fill us newcomers in on the arch-aeology of why some syscalls have
different numbers on different archs? I know it's partially because some simply
didn't implement some syscalls so there were numbering mismatches, but would it
have been *that* hard to wire all of those skipped syscalls up to one stub
'return -ENOSYS'?


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped