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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-07 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ 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 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: fix syscall_fn_t type 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 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: use the correct function type for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall Sami Tolvanen
2019-05-07 17:25 ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-07 18:32 ` Sami Tolvanen [this message]
2019-05-15 11:40 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-24 18:35 ` Will Deacon
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).