Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall

2019-09-16 Thread Will Deacon
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 >

Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall

2019-09-13 Thread Andy Lutomirski
> 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 >

Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall

2019-09-13 Thread Sami Tolvanen
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

Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall

2019-09-13 Thread Andy Lutomirski
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?

[PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall

2019-09-13 Thread Sami Tolvanen
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 +---