Re: [patch 42/94] [PATCH 11/44] [CVE-2009-0029] System callwrappers part 01

[Heiko Carstens]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:00:29PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > 2.6.28-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > commit 58fd3aa288939d3097fa04505b25c2f5e6e144d1 upstream.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>
> 
> That does not make review exactly easy. Would it be possible to
> inline upstream comment in the commit message?
> 
> ...upstream commit message is empty :-(.

Yes, what should it contain anyway?
"This converts the first 10 system calls to the system call wrapper
infrastructure"? IMHO the subject says enough.

> > -asmlinkage long
> > -sys_nanosleep(struct timespec __user *rqtp, struct timespec __user *rmtp)
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(nanosleep, struct timespec __user *, rqtp,
> > +		struct timespec __user *, rmtp)
> >  {
> >  	struct timespec tu;
> >  
> 
> Is it strictly neccessary to modify all the syscalls? 

Not strictly necessary, but much easier to maintain in the long term.
It's simply a just convert 'em all approach and never think again about
this.

Plus the ugliness of the 64 bit parameter special case handling makes it
unlikely that we will ever have again a discussion how a new system call
should pass an loff_t.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/