On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 06:25:12PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I strongly think that we cant to fix up the common definition in
> kernel/sys_ni.c rather than having a point-hack in arm64. Other
> architectures (e.g. x86, s390) will want the same for CFI, and I'd like
> to ensure that our approached don't diverge.
s390 already has the following in arch/s390/kernel/sys_s390.c:
SYSCALL_DEFINE0(ni_syscall)
{
return -ENOSYS;
}
Which, I suppose, is cleaner than calling sys_ni_syscall.
> I took a quick look, and it looks like it's messy but possible to fix
> up the core.
OK. How would you propose fixing this?
Sami
