On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:50 AM Tom Hromatka <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/11/19 11:54 AM, Tom Hromatka wrote: > > PowerPC experts, > > > > Paul Moore and I are working on the v2.4 release of libseccomp, > > and as part of this work I need to update the syscall table for > > each architecture. > > > > I have incorporated the new ppc syscall.tbl into libseccomp, but > > I am not familiar with the value of "spu" in the ABI column. For > > example: > > > > 22 32 umount sys_oldumount > > 22 64 umount sys_ni_syscall > > 22 spu umount sys_ni_syscall > > > > In libseccomp, we maintain a 32-bit ppc syscall table and a 64-bit > > ppc syscall table. Do we also need to add a "spu" ppc syscall > > table? Some clarification on the syscalls marked "spu" and "nospu" > > would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks for the awesome responses, Ben and Michael. I'll definitely > get Paul's input as well, but it sounds reasonable to exclude SPUs > from the newest libseccomp release.
Based on this thread, I don't think we need to worry about "spu" at this point in time. Thanks everyone. > Michael's recommendation to replace "nospu" with common" and ignore > "spu" entirely has allowed ppc and ppc64 to pass all of our internal > checks. > > Thanks again! > > Tom -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
