[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 01/11] prctl: Support movement of arch prctls out of common code
Hi Dave,

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 06:14:17PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> The core framework for the prctl() syscall is unloved and looking
> rather crusty these days. It also relies on defining ancillary
> boilerplate macros for each prctl() in order to control conditional
> compilation of the different prctl calls. We have better ways to
> do this now, using Kconfig.
> This patch defines a new arch hook arch_syscall(). Architectures
> that implemement arch-specific syscalls can now select
> HAVE_ARCH_SYSCALL in their Kconfig and define this function
> appropriately.
> The core prctl() implementation now matches option against the list
> of common or legacy prctls, deferring to prctl_arch() if an
> unrecognised option is encountered.
> (arch_prctl() would have been a nicer name, but it conflicts with the
> pre-existing syscall of the same name on x86, particularly in the um
> code.)
> No functional change.


> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> index af5f8c2..c911ff0 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
> -#ifndef _LINUX_PRCTL_H
> -#define _LINUX_PRCTL_H
> +#ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_PRCTL_H
> +#define _UAPI_LINUX_PRCTL_H

Is it safe to rename this #define, or is there a possibility that userspace
could be using it for something and relying on it not changing?

Other than that:

Acked-by: Will Deacon <>


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-21 20:28    [W:0.102 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site