Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On 09/14/2015 06:35 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> I missed sys_ipc entirely. >> >> Ingo, Thomas, want to just wire those up, too? I can send a patch >> next week, but it'll be as trivial as the socket one. > > Yeah, sure - split out system calls are so much better (and slightly faster) > than >

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

* Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 11 September 2015 11:54:50 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> To make sure I don't miss any (it seems I missed recvmmsg and sendmmsg for > >> the socketcall case,

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 September 2015 11:54:50 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> To make sure I don't miss any (it seems I missed recvmmsg and sendmmsg for >> the socketcall case, sigh), this is the list of ipc syscalls to implement? >> >>

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 September 2015 10:24:29 Heiko Carstens wrote: >> >> FWIW, the s390 approach (ignoring the "new" system calls) is only >> temporarily. >> I'll enable the seperate calls later when I have time to test everything,

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:53:12PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 02 September 2015 13:16:19 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 09/02/2015 02:48 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > Should all other architectures follow suit? > > > Or should we follow the s390 approach: > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On Friday 11 September 2015 10:24:29 Heiko Carstens wrote: > > FWIW, the s390 approach (ignoring the "new" system calls) is only temporarily. > I'll enable the seperate calls later when I have time to test everything, > especially the glibc stuff. Ok, thanks for clarifying. > The same is true

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On Friday 11 September 2015 11:54:50 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > To make sure I don't miss any (it seems I missed recvmmsg and sendmmsg for > the socketcall case, sigh), this is the list of ipc syscalls to implement? > > sys_msgget > sys_msgctl > sys_msgrcv > sys_msgsnd >

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On Wednesday 02 September 2015 13:16:19 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 09/02/2015 02:48 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > Should all other architectures follow suit? > > Or should we follow the s390 approach: > > > > It is up to the maintainer(s), largely dependent on how likely you are > going

RE: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

From: Peter Anvin > Sent: 02 September 2015 21:16 > On 09/02/2015 02:48 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > Should all other architectures follow suit? > > Or should we follow the s390 approach: > > > > It is up to the maintainer(s), largely dependent on how likely you are > going to want to

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On 09/02/2015 02:48 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Should all other architectures follow suit? > Or should we follow the s390 approach: > It is up to the maintainer(s), largely dependent on how likely you are going to want to support this in your libc, but in general, socketcall is an

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On x86_64, there's no socketcall syscall; instead all of the socket > calls are real syscalls. For 32-bit programs, we're stuck offering > the socketcall syscall, but it would be nice to expose the direct > calls as

[PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

On x86_64, there's no socketcall syscall; instead all of the socket calls are real syscalls. For 32-bit programs, we're stuck offering the socketcall syscall, but it would be nice to expose the direct calls as well. This will enable seccomp to filter socket calls (for new userspace only, but