Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 May 2019 19:35:51 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: use the correct function type for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall |
| |
Hi Sami,
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:40:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 11:32:27AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > > 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? > > In the absence of a patch from Mark, I'd suggest just adding a SYS_NI macro > to our asm/syscall_wrapper.h file which avoids the error injection stuff. It > doesn't preclude moving this to the core later on, but it unblocks the CFI > work.
Do you plan to repost this?
Will
| |