|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | <asm/unistd.h> defined dangerous syscallN macro | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] SUSE LINUX 10.0 | Reporter: | Michael Matz <matz> |
| Component: | Kernel | Assignee: | Andreas Kleen <ak> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | ||
| Version: | Beta 4 Plus | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | Other | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
|
Description
Michael Matz
2005-09-06 16:23:06 UTC
Please send a patch to Andrew Morton. I propose to fix this upstream and close this report as WONTFIX. I think applications trying to use kernel headers do so at their own risk. I'm feeling unsure about the procedure of sending kernel patches, so how about we make a deal, I write the patch, and someone tries to get it upstream? Oh, and regarding apps using kernel headers are on their own: I completely agree. But sometimes it might be necessary (in this case it was, because klibc didn't provide the lseek64 interface, which is an ommission in klibc, but world never is perfect ;-) ) and then the provided means from the kernel header at least shouldn't make things more difficult than necessary. Andi, can you care about this (sending the bug upstream)? In case there are additional questions I would be lost anyway :/ x86-64 already has a memory clobber here. I will submit an i386 patch and tell the other architecture maintainers. |