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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.