Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:58:02PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > > On 03/27/2018 12:40 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > > > wrote: > > >>

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 03/27/2018 12:40 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > > wrote: > >> > >> What about a tarball with a minimal Debian x32 chroot? Then you can

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On 03/27/2018 12:40 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > wrote: >> >> What about a tarball with a minimal Debian x32 chroot? Then you can >> install interesting packages you would like to test yourself. > > That

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > What about a tarball with a minimal Debian x32 chroot? Then you can > install interesting packages you would like to test yourself. That probably works fine. Linus

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On 03/27/2018 10:03 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Hmm. Do you have a few statically built binaries that could be tested > without installing a whole distribution? Something real and meaningful > enough that it actually exercised a few real system calls, but not > something that needs to bring in 50

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:44 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: < > FWIW, we are maintaining an x32 port in Debian and there are some people > actually using it [1]. There is one build instance running on VMWare that > I am hosting [2] and around 10800 out of 12900

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

Hi Linus! On 03/26/2018 03:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Secretly, I was hoping to kill x32, because it's not being used afaik. FWIW, we are maintaining an x32 port in Debian and there are some people actually using it [1]. There is one build instance running on VMWare that I am hosting [2] and

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:47:50AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > * mips n32 and x86 x32 can become an extra source of headache. > That actually applies to any plans of passing struct pt_regs *. As it > is, e.g. syscall 515 on amd64 is compat_sys_readv(). Dispatched via > this: > /* >

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > HOWEVER. > > I didn't actually test any of the compat or x32 ones, and the way I > did it there also was no type-checking or other automated catching of > getting it wrong. So it's almost certainly

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > Linus, Dominik - how do you plan dealing with that fun? Secretly, I was hoping to kill x32, because it's not being used afaik. More realistically, I was thinking we'd just use a separate table or system calls, and

Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:40:17AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > Kinda-sorta part: > * asmlinkage_protect is taken out for now, so m68k has problems. > * syscalls that run out of 6 slots barf violently. For mips it's > wrong (there we have 8 slots); for stuff like arm and ppc it's right,

[RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:15:32AM +, Al Viro wrote: > FWIW, I have something that is almost reasonable on preprocessor side; > however, that has uncovered the following fun: [snip] According to gcc folks, the right way to do it is type-punning via union. Anyway, below is something that