Re: [PATCH v2] arch: Reserve map_shadow_stack() syscall number for all architectures
Michael Ellerman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.alpha,gmane.linux.kernel.api,gmane.linux.kernel.cross-arch,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.ia64,gmane.linux.ports.mips,gmane.linux.ports.parisc,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.ports.sparc,gmane.linux.kernel.perf.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Sohil Mehta <[email protected]> writes: > commit c35559f94ebc ("x86/shstk: Introduce map_shadow_stack syscall") > recently added support for map_shadow_stack() but it is limited to x86 > only for now. There is a possibility that other architectures (namely, > arm64 and RISC-V), that are implementing equivalent support for shadow > stacks, might need to add support for it. > > Independent of that, reserving arch-specific syscall numbers in the > syscall tables of all architectures is good practice and would help > avoid future conflicts. map_shadow_stack() is marked as a conditional > syscall in sys_ni.c. Adding it to the syscall tables of other > architectures is harmless and would return ENOSYS when exercised. > > Note, map_shadow_stack() was assigned #453 during the merge process > since #452 was taken by fchmodat2(). > > For Powerpc, map it to sys_ni_syscall() as is the norm for Powerpc > syscall tables. Mapping it to sys_map_shadow_stack() would work fine, but I'm happy with sys_ni_syscall as I don't see powerpc implementing map_shadow_stack() any time soon. Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]> (powerpc) cheers