From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] arm: __NR_syscalls fix Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:27:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20140423102718.GA6434@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1397211951-20549-1-git-send-email-miklos@szeredi.hu> <1397211951-20549-3-git-send-email-miklos@szeredi.hu> <20140411103351.GJ16119@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140411115421.GL16119@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140411124502.GO16119@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from gw-1.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.217]:45619 "EHLO pandora.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752905AbaDWK2N (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:28:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140411124502.GO16119@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Miklos Szeredi , Wade Farnsworth , Al Viro Cc: linux-arch , Kernel Mailing List , Miklos Szeredi On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 01:45:02PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 02:02:32PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > > wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 01:50:50PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > >> Yes, and the padding will be of wrong length if NR_syscalls is > > >> incorrect (which may be Oopsable?). At least that is my impression > > >> from a casual glance. > > > > > > Please explain. > > > > Look at ending lines of arch/arm/kernel/calls.S: if NR_syscalls is a > > multiple of 4, then syscalls_padding will be zero. I.e. no padding > > despite the fact that there is in fact only 382 system calls in table > > and there should be 2 sys_ni_syscall pads. > > Hmm, it looks like you're right... this used to work fine until... > > commit 1f66e06fb6414732bef7bf4a071ef76a837badec > Author: Wade Farnsworth > Date: Fri Sep 7 18:18:25 2012 +0100 > > ARM: 7524/1: support syscall tracing > > because the tracing code wanted to know the number of syscalls. I don't > know what the answer is here, because the current solution is IMHO far > to fragile. Actually, no, you're wrong. Look closely at the definitions. __NR_syscalls is not the same as NR_syscalls. __NR_syscalls is the statically defined size of the syscall table for *probes purposes. NR_syscalls is the assembly-counted number of CALL() macros in arch/arm/kernel/calls.S. So, patch 2 isn't required, and patch 3 needs to be fixed up to take this into account... -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.