Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190913210018.125266-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20190913210018.125266-4-samitolvanen@google.com> <CALCETrWquNJJ6yXdHA_F3h71hVrFjnpwmdH2NmGZyFu-V6Lnfg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWquNJJ6yXdHA_F3h71hVrFjnpwmdH2NmGZyFu-V6Lnfg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:26:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCJKud9ikdsfy9-bugbqKb-C7VXEEPJ_P1bO5KpGqv62Wuc7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: use the correct function type for sys_ni_syscall
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> 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
SYSCALL_DEFINE0 for this though and since sys_ni_syscall always
returns -ENOSYS, it shouldn't be a huge problem. Thoughts?

Sami