From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753668AbaDOPKh (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:10:37 -0400 Received: from mano-163-50-shared.jabatus.fr ([109.234.163.50]:38248 "EHLO mano-163-50-shared.jabatus.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750919AbaDOPKg (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:10:36 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 5123 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:10:36 EDT X-MailPropre-MailScanner-From: ecolbus@manux.info X-MailPropre-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=0, required 5, autolearn=not spam) X-MailPropre-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details X-MailPropre-MailScanner-ID: AFA1191422FE.A0EAD X-MailPropre-MailScanner-Information: Message sortant - Serveurs o2switch Message-ID: <534D4BE9.5080805@manux.info> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:10:33 +0200 From: Emmanuel Colbus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131104 Icedove/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: One Thousand Gnomes CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][3/11][MANUX] Kernel compatibility : syscall numbers References: <534D375B.9070806@manux.info> <20140415160213.490439ea@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140415160213.490439ea@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le 15/04/2014 17:02, One Thousand Gnomes a écrit : > On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:42:51 +0200 > Emmanuel Colbus wrote: > >> Continuing the discussion regarding syscalls, I have a question >> regarding vector 0x80. >> >> As I mentionned earlier, my OS's internals are very different from >> Linux's, thus I have had a need for a few new syscalls. Since I wanted >> to avoid any collision with Linux, but I also wanted to keep the >> ability to put the syscall table in a single 4096-byte page on 64-bit >> computers (on which I hope to run one day), I chose to start taking >> syscall number 511, and to progress downwards - currently, I'm using >> numbers 511 through 501 included (with a hole at 503, but I'll likely >> fill it again in the future). >> >> Is this okay for you? And in this case, if this isn't asking too much, >> could you avoid using them for now, to avoid any conflict? > > I don't see why the question arises. Your non Linux ABI binaries will be > the ones to use such calls. They can have a different ELF header to Linux > binaries. Linux then won't even try and run them by mistake. At that > point your worst case is Linux calls eventually collide with your own and > you have two tables according to ABI. Hmmm... I see your point... Currently, I simply use the Linux ELF header, and I hadn't even thought about using a different one. Indeed, using a different header seems like a good solution. OK, unless a better idea arises, I think I'll use this solution. Thanks! Emmanuel