From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEEBD15A874; Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:58:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720529910; cv=none; b=sIuIvc+AHxkR1MNwvtUr3JfAHe9IB1Jhp3bikHmy5DI9yCQ10aS8FTwzS1v5fdn1tf/mfc1yD8yLMmZllBmrnCXZxW4MYGj1O8OM8Z6D7gY77EJTcQxcsulz+NoGSifcAXboMGiepZP49gd2MQjb6bEIK7bKSQB66VExqaErmTQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720529910; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SZqpp+8uBi9BeJ6ui4vfsCsN4ZmNidm8v/FMqDTL9Co=; h=MIME-Version:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:To:Cc: Subject:Content-Type; b=Z0kOTs9aICWAnUR2ZqP/PJiNnNX8/11WLEX52its1eR9ic/pKGdTdTSyVDZadphrtPt4Qp/1j5vG2QAx1A+3ZFO/323PcRl9cqkfLGyukxJoFjNyFRVJSQPrKxThkk0/WdoOmdGraDTkiyeR53g+9SVQZ+U4WlEMIMvyhy6xXhg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arndb.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arndb.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arndb.de header.i=@arndb.de header.b=ezPDb30+; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=IIDMttrI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arndb.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arndb.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arndb.de header.i=@arndb.de header.b="ezPDb30+"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="IIDMttrI" Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C411143BB5; Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap51 ([10.202.2.101]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 09 Jul 2024 08:58:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arndb.de; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1720529907; x=1720616307; bh=RlRmT5ThLi RqMOTKoy6+9YzSK2zOFyc3+8F3McMUc3E=; b=ezPDb30+/gyO7wi2XDjj6AKdmO vEbJZz457q6JWgzNzEHToAvCCHp2bd4Y4gA8e4UwS7UCbUmwe5rQQllki4SUtC3N wQLeUsTUpQz9q6hLE6krIkIl0rE5BsCWmiUAe5yUvzzcLan/92Afw/BUEupvJkM6 c00MQliFRNae4zo04HUfrFHc9x3hS7UZhQ/TnolCleF9KInaSSCZuV1cGSMJNTUL PnsvtXE8XgEe4MtACHlyoy3GD9Py3d0eFFPVuQgT1f6KvGJNs+G27XT0N/rgL7A3 Mkj5Io8LASR09h4yh6EWSbHmWFnc+wIvd1d8dI5lVXhwpaAU63rLI8oLsp3g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1720529907; x=1720616307; bh=RlRmT5ThLiRqMOTKoy6+9YzSK2zO Fyc3+8F3McMUc3E=; b=IIDMttrIlPZxhC+uyEvt3vO/2WIoh8baQqtj19Yw+KAv 3RaJV7gMZ7J3pQ4UKlREZbBPbuCnpIHLGtmsOehIf1+SvxCY4OICLxiOjrYfCDWx SVtML5ShJNHexfK2+3QoD66A5yc2+787M2wl0SVJowGDZOYWhCh3GkuO3nGEfAPB FSFJ0g/QGA7Vq1BrLzWnqZEJbZVR9XbghICq2fwmTuJ8kGJsaCWIx0ReYiAujhEb ncbWdaL9ce56WWfbx8FsFRfsBwlP6cSRevaJ6srvEruGYb8B5Ys2+lhv/mkjDFb7 4nhEoap2hL0wt8Qe2sTuCNvhTTTxw6dKTYV+MgVxqg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvdelgdehkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvvefutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdetrhhn ugcuuegvrhhgmhgrnhhnfdcuoegrrhhnugesrghrnhgusgdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeffheeugeetiefhgeethfejgfdtuefggeejleehjeeutefhfeeggefhkedtkeet ffenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrrh hnugesrghrnhgusgdruggv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7EB73B6008D; Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:58:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-568-g843fbadbe-fm-20240701.003-g843fbadb Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <736fde6a-7b2a-4920-af1e-1ad2358db785@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20240709105709.18ce785d@canb.auug.org.au> <20240709200851.4d921e43@canb.auug.org.au> <784a34e5-4654-44c9-9c07-f9f4ffd952a0@app.fastmail.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 14:58:06 +0200 From: "Arnd Bergmann" To: "Jiri Olsa" Cc: "Stephen Rothwell" , "Christian Brauner" , =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_G=C3=B6ttsche?= , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , linux-next Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the asm-generic tree Content-Type: text/plain On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 14:42, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:20:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 13:53, Jiri Olsa wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 01:44:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > >> >> Though I'm still not sure what uretprobe is only added >> >> to half the architectures at the moment. There is a chance >> >> we need a different conditional for it than '64'. >> > >> > uretprobe is defined only for x86_64, not sure what that means >> > for scripts/syscall.tbl though >> >> I meant you hooked it up unconditionally for all architectures >> using the old method, i.e. arc, arm64, csky, hexagon, loongarch64, >> nios2, openrisc, riscv32, riscv64, and xtensa in addition >> to x86-64, but not for the other ABIs: alpha, arm32, m68k, >> microblaze, mips-o32, mips-n32, mips64, nios2, parisc32, parisc64, >> powerpc32, powerpc64, powerpc-spu, s390-31, s390-64, sh, >> sparc32, sparc64, x86-32 and x86-x32. >> >> If that is not the list you had intended, do you have a list >> of which architectures actually have the required hardware >> to hook it up? It would be good to do this correctly from >> the start so we don't rely on architecture maintainers assigning >> the numbers individually. > > hum, so it's hooked in: > 190fec72df4a uprobe: Wire up uretprobe system call > > and the intention is to have it ONLY for x86_64 (as stated above), > if that's not what happened I need to fix it, please let me know > what's the problem If this cannot be used on any other architectures, I would suggest adding it to the architecture specific list instead, probably number #335, which is unused on x86-64. I was under the assumption that this would theoretically be useful for non-x86 architectures in the future, in which case you should reserve the same syscall number everywhere now and rely the stub in kernel/sys_ni.c for those that are missing the implementation. Arnd