From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: use the correct function type for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 11:32:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190507183227.GA10191@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190507172512.GA35803@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 06:25:12PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I strongly think that we cant to fix up the common definition in
> kernel/sys_ni.c rather than having a point-hack in arm64. Other
> architectures (e.g. x86, s390) will want the same for CFI, and I'd like
> to ensure that our approached don't diverge.
s390 already has the following in arch/s390/kernel/sys_s390.c:
SYSCALL_DEFINE0(ni_syscall)
{
return -ENOSYS;
}
Which, I suppose, is cleaner than calling sys_ni_syscall.
> I took a quick look, and it looks like it's messy but possible to fix
> up the core.
OK. How would you propose fixing this?
Sami
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: use the correct function type for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 11:32:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190507183227.GA10191@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190507172512.GA35803@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 06:25:12PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I strongly think that we cant to fix up the common definition in
> kernel/sys_ni.c rather than having a point-hack in arm64. Other
> architectures (e.g. x86, s390) will want the same for CFI, and I'd like
> to ensure that our approached don't diverge.
s390 already has the following in arch/s390/kernel/sys_s390.c:
SYSCALL_DEFINE0(ni_syscall)
{
return -ENOSYS;
}
Which, I suppose, is cleaner than calling sys_ni_syscall.
> I took a quick look, and it looks like it's messy but possible to fix
> up the core.
OK. How would you propose fixing this?
Sami
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-07 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-03 19:12 [PATCH v2 0/3] fix function type mismatches in syscall wrappers Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: fix syscall_fn_t type Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: use the correct function type in SYSCALL_DEFINE0 Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: use the correct function type for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-03 19:12 ` Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-07 17:25 ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-07 17:25 ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-07 18:32 ` Sami Tolvanen [this message]
2019-05-07 18:32 ` Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-15 11:40 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-15 11:40 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-24 18:35 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-24 18:35 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-24 21:58 ` Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-24 21:58 ` Sami Tolvanen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190507183227.GA10191@google.com \
--to=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.