Thread (13 messages) flat view 13 messages, 6 authors, 2018-12-02

Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall

From: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Date: 2018-11-29 19:16:52
Also in: linux-fsdevel, linux-man, lkml

On November 30, 2018 5:54:18 AM GMT+13:00, Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Nov 29, 2018, at 4:28 AM, Florian Weimer [off-list ref]
wrote:
quoted
Disclaimer: I'm looking at this patch because Christian requested it.
I'm not a kernel developer.

* Christian Brauner:
quoted
diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
quoted
quoted
index 3cf7b533b3d1..3f27ffd8ae87 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
@@ -398,3 +398,4 @@
384    i386    arch_prctl        sys_arch_prctl           
__ia32_compat_sys_arch_prctl
quoted
quoted
385    i386    io_pgetevents        sys_io_pgetevents       
__ia32_compat_sys_io_pgetevents
quoted
quoted
386    i386    rseq            sys_rseq            __ia32_sys_rseq
+387    i386    procfd_signal        sys_procfd_signal       
__ia32_compat_sys_procfd_signal
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
quoted
quoted
index f0b1709a5ffb..8a30cde82450 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
@@ -343,6 +343,7 @@
332    common    statx            __x64_sys_statx
333    common    io_pgetevents        __x64_sys_io_pgetevents
334    common    rseq            __x64_sys_rseq
+335    64    procfd_signal        __x64_sys_procfd_signal

#
# x32-specific system call numbers start at 512 to avoid cache
impact
quoted
quoted
@@ -386,3 +387,4 @@
545    x32    execveat        __x32_compat_sys_execveat/ptregs
546    x32    preadv2            __x32_compat_sys_preadv64v2
547    x32    pwritev2        __x32_compat_sys_pwritev64v2
+548    x32    procfd_signal        __x32_compat_sys_procfd_signal
Is there a reason why these numbers have to be different?

(See the recent discussion with Andy Lutomirski.)
Hah, I missed this part of the patch.  Let’s not add new x32 syscall
numbers.

Also, can we perhaps rework this a bit to get rid of the compat entry
point?  The easier way would be to check in_compat_syscall(). The nicer
way IMO would be to use the 64-bit structure for 32-bit as well.
Do you have a syscall which set precedence/did this before I could look at?
Just if you happen to remember one.
Fwiw, I followed the other signal syscalls.
They all introduce compat syscalls.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help