From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 08:54:18 -0800 Message-ID: <36323361-90BD-41AF-AB5B-EE0D7BA02C21@amacapital.net> References: <20181120105124.14733-1-christian@brauner.io> <87in0g5aqo.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87in0g5aqo.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Weimer Cc: Christian Brauner , ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, serge@hallyn.com, jannh@google.com, luto@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, cyphar@cyphar.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, dancol@google.com, timmurray@google.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org > On Nov 29, 2018, at 4:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >=20 > Disclaimer: I'm looking at this patch because Christian requested it. > I'm not a kernel developer. >=20 > * Christian Brauner: >=20 >> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl b/arch/x86/entry/sysc= alls/syscall_32.tbl >> index 3cf7b533b3d1..3f27ffd8ae87 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl >> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl >> @@ -398,3 +398,4 @@ >> 384 i386 arch_prctl sys_arch_prctl __ia32_compat_= sys_arch_prctl >> 385 i386 io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents __ia32_compa= t_sys_io_pgetevents >> 386 i386 rseq sys_rseq __ia32_sys_rseq >> +387 i386 procfd_signal sys_procfd_signal __ia32_comp= at_sys_procfd_signal >> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl b/arch/x86/entry/sysc= alls/syscall_64.tbl >> index f0b1709a5ffb..8a30cde82450 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl >> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl >> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ >> 332 common statx __x64_sys_statx >> 333 common io_pgetevents __x64_sys_io_pgetevents >> 334 common rseq __x64_sys_rseq >> +335 64 procfd_signal __x64_sys_procfd_signal >>=20 >> # >> # x32-specific system call numbers start at 512 to avoid cache impact >> @@ -386,3 +387,4 @@ >> 545 x32 execveat __x32_compat_sys_execveat/ptregs >> 546 x32 preadv2 __x32_compat_sys_preadv64v2 >> 547 x32 pwritev2 __x32_compat_sys_pwritev64v2 >> +548 x32 procfd_signal __x32_compat_sys_procfd_signal >=20 > Is there a reason why these numbers have to be different? >=20 > (See the recent discussion with Andy Lutomirski.) Hah, I missed this part of the patch. Let=E2=80=99s not add new x32 syscall= numbers. Also, can we perhaps rework this a bit to get rid of the compat entry point?= The easier way would be to check in_compat_syscall(). The nicer way IMO wo= uld be to use the 64-bit structure for 32-bit as well.