On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:23:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dominik Brodowski <li...@dominikbrodowski.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:19:33PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Ok, this series looks mostly good to me, but AFAICS this breaks the UML
> > > build:
> > >
> > > make[2]: *** No rule to make target 'archheaders'. Stop.
> > > arch/um/Makefile:119: recipe for target 'archheaders' failed
> > > make[1]: *** [archheaders] Error 2
> > > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> >
> > Ah, that's caused by patch 8/8 which I did and do not like all that much
> > anyway: UML re-uses syscall_64.tbl which now has x86-specific entries like
> > __sys_x86_pread64, but expects the generic syscall stub sys_pread64
> > referenced there. Fixup patch below; could be folded with patch 8/8. Or
> > patch 8/8 could simply be dropped from the series altogether...
>
> I still like the 'truth in advertising' aspect. For example if I see this in
> the
> syscall table:
>
> 10 common mprotect __sys_x86_mprotect
>
> I can immediately find the _real_ syscall entry point:
>
> ffffffff81180a10 <__sys_x86_mprotect>:
> ffffffff81180a10: 48 8b 57 60 mov 0x60(%rdi),%rdx
> ffffffff81180a14: 48 8b 77 68 mov 0x68(%rdi),%rsi
> ffffffff81180a18: b9 ff ff ff ff mov $0xffffffff,%ecx
> ffffffff81180a1d: 48 8b 7f 70 mov 0x70(%rdi),%rdi
> ffffffff81180a21: e8 fa fc ff ff callq ffffffff81180720
> <do_mprotect_pkey>
> ffffffff81180a26: 48 98 cltq
> ffffffff81180a28: c3 retq
> ffffffff81180a29: 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax)
>
> If, on the other hand, I see this entry:
>
> 10 common mprotect sys_mprotect
>
> Then, as a first step, no symbol anywhere matches with this:
>
> triton:~/tip> grep sys_mprotect System.map
> triton:~/tip>
>
> "sys_mprotect" does not exist in any easily discoverable sense. You have to
> *know*
> to replace the sys_ prefix with __sys_x86_ to find it.
>
> Now arguably we could use a __sys_ prefix instead of the grep-barrier
> __sys_x86
> prefix - but that too would be somewhat confusing I think.
Well, if looking at the ARCH="um" kernel, you won't find the
__sys_x86_mprotect there in its System.map -- so we either have to
disentangle um and plain x86, or live with some cause for confusion.
__sys_mprotect as prefix won't work by the way, as the double-underscore
__sys_ variant is already used in net/* for internal syscall helpers.
Thanks,
Dominik
