From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7C8C49ED7 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2A6208C2 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="TWMQzCqG" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730394AbfIMX0u (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:26:50 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-f68.google.com ([209.85.217.68]:33710 "EHLO mail-vs1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725747AbfIMX0u (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:26:50 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-f68.google.com with SMTP id p13so992653vso.0 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:26:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BuqlVIgEPj4t6xwCAnrh40E0/Lhnf5UdZRgHKliR78E=; b=TWMQzCqG86u/8Hd28PnVMaFkD8Vi7hNvYq3WNU0xwCh0yXl5lxLQoo+DbaE9pAKpyD Y6a6IjJkdEum2GDoilsVr36YRga/bb3L+Zz/7OgXYkO7keuc2EvBDEtdKx73XGd6w/K2 CvuvXcHam4MVf5FUAZjumSeNv+s+tZp/bmlSRsx0QhFvtsUtnhyZiMJ9t7KYMXoJhz5b ck9PvONmzY+mcSuHM59SD5UJ9VZEj0dXWTPjxKdA+dmo4lvHQSJSQ0VlemCppPM1+FCS WjG2KsUWhbNKsVXAB5+X90532MBnhlc/JVVyLyQdpGl1bcWxkvtO7Svd/tlSojydmioQ 9XUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BuqlVIgEPj4t6xwCAnrh40E0/Lhnf5UdZRgHKliR78E=; b=P2ZXxLunWU1abUf1McRGdFqvtBcRt1Tb1fWfM3x4gc/wQQEDHnt5ko2sKiS0BwY4pc dGUM+QNtwJdlNsg1sx19U60rWj55+92jzftcALsgtqSnWbltW1MD7ymqkzSaVUcIXWVG coIpMB3X97BKkhb6DeIauuQmtIEHt/V6PvUk/wkt4cYp7TdNhZmVFJEaosQzBn+aDOJT hBsau/2+ZpcFEyzQLv4G+fL7tcbk1Gt5rcw7AXxemadW4CKmjOQDvz2FaVo8Z8DC9GlQ +rzKUbKDvStsE91selJdT4CmAKIHbEG58xb9fH8O+Y7jU4Lf+q7Uwo6lDcMIFegYyv2G 3esw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW7j+VsF1tykO91bwdBKSPVuKjTMrr98FWtYydo6K41uqW955Lr a7N6Qto24iP1C/DitF8utWl1MUtuW9PTeixcfvAFvQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwycvdDYlTOOriF3z+vtDCUG8wP3ergny5/K5LW+3foMmRsvA7tb66lrgScvQMLqp3kDEI+TebwYJLkSkhsPks= X-Received: by 2002:a67:2606:: with SMTP id m6mr6026464vsm.5.1568417208929; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:26:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190913210018.125266-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20190913210018.125266-4-samitolvanen@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Sami Tolvanen Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:26:37 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , Kees Cook , X86 ML , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Should this be SYSCALL_DEFINE0? It can be, and that would also fix the issue. However, it does result in unnecessary error injection to be hooked up here, which is why arm64 preferred to avoid the macro when I fixed it there. S390 uses SYSCALL_DEFINE0 for this though and since sys_ni_syscall always returns -ENOSYS, it shouldn't be a huge problem. Thoughts? Sami