On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 07:35:51PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 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.
If we don't want to use SYSCALL_DEFINE0, I don't think we need a macro
at all.
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
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)
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
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 12:12:25PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Calling sys_ni_syscall through a syscall_fn_t pointer trips indirect
> call Control-Flow Integrity checking due to a function type
> mismatch. Use SYSCALL_DEFINE0 for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall instead and
> remove the now unnecessary
Calling sys_ni_syscall through a syscall_fn_t pointer trips indirect
call Control-Flow Integrity checking due to a function type
mismatch. Use SYSCALL_DEFINE0 for __arm64_sys_ni_syscall instead and
remove the now unnecessary casts.
Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen
---
arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c | 14
6 matches
Mail list logo
