> On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:28 PM, Sami Tolvanen <samitolva...@google.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:46 PM Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote: >> Didn't you just fix the type of sys_ni_syscall? What am I missing here? > > The other patch fixes indirect call type mismatches when the function > is called through the syscall table. However, cond_syscall creates an > alias to the actual sys_ni_syscall function defined in > kernel/sys_ni.c, which still has the wrong type. > Ah, I get it. Doesn’t this cause a little bit of code bloat, though? What if you made __x86_ni_syscall, etc (possibly using the *DEFINE_SYSCALL0 macros) and then generate weak aliases to those?
- Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: use the correct function type fo... Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: use the correct function typ... Sami Tolvanen
- [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_... Sami Tolvanen
- Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type fo... Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function typ... Sami Tolvanen
- Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function... Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct func... Will Deacon
- [PATCH 4/4] x86: fix function types in COND_SYSCALL Sami Tolvanen
- Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86: fix function types in COND_SYSCA... Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86: fix function types in COND_S... Sami Tolvanen
- Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86: fix function types in CO... Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86: fix function types i... Sami Tolvanen