On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 05:27:40PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> >> 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
>
> On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>
>> 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
>
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
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:00 PM Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>
> Use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall in system
> call tables to fix indirect call mismatches with Control-Flow
> Integrity (CFI) checking.
Should this be SYSCALL_DEFINE0?
Use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall in system
call tables to fix indirect call mismatches with Control-Flow
Integrity (CFI) checking.
Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen
---
arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c| 13 ++---
arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c| 12 +---
5 matches
Mail list logo