Hi Mark,
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 11:21:28AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Generally, this makes sense, but I'm not sure that this is complete.
>
> IIUC this introduces a new type mismatch with sys_ni_syscall() in some
> cases.
Thanks for the review. You're correct, sys_ni_syscall needs to be
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 01:04:51PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Although a syscall defined using SYSCALL_DEFINE0 doesn't accept
> parameters, use the correct function type to avoid indirect call
> type mismatches with Control-Flow Integrity checking.
Generally, this makes sense, but I'm not sure
Although a syscall defined using SYSCALL_DEFINE0 doesn't accept
parameters, use the correct function type to avoid indirect call
type mismatches with Control-Flow Integrity checking.
Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h | 18 +-
1 file
3 matches
Mail list logo