Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] powerpc: Don't force ENOSYS as error on syscall fail
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Date: 2015-02-11 03:04:09
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 07:55 +0000, Bogdan Purcareata wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
In certain scenarios - e.g. seccomp filtering with ERRNO as default action - the system call fails for other reasons than the syscall not being available. The seccomp filter can be configured to store a user-defined error code on return from a blacklisted syscall. The RFC is this: are there currently any user-space scenarios where it is required that the system call return ENOSYS as error code on failure, no matter the circumstances? I don't want to break userspace requirements. I have not added code to force this error code in situations different than secure_computing failure, in order to keep overhead at a minimum. Signed-off-by: Bogdan Purcareata <redacted> --- arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_32.S | 3 ++- arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_32.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_32.S index 59848e5..52e48dd 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_32.S +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_32.S@@ -425,7 +425,8 @@ END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_NEED_PAIRED_STWCX) b 1b #endif /* CONFIG_44x */ -66: li r3,-ENOSYS +66: +# li r3,-ENOSYS b ret_from_syscall .globl ret_from_forkdiff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S index e6bfe8e..80db02e 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S@@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ syscall_dotrace: b .Lsyscall_dotrace_cont syscall_enosys: - li r3,-ENOSYS +# li r3,-ENOSYS b syscall_exit
So what happens if you call this with a syscall number that's out of bounds? cheers