On Wed, Jul 24, 2024, at 09:46, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 03:52:27PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl >> index 6452c2ec469a..dabf1982de6d 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl >> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl >> @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ >> 460 common lsm_set_self_attr sys_lsm_set_self_attr >> 461 common lsm_list_modules sys_lsm_list_modules >> 462 common mseal sys_mseal >> -463 64 uretprobe sys_uretprobe >> +467 common uretprobe sys_uretprobe >> >> # >> # Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently > > Isn't include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h expected to be updated as well? > As of mainline commit v6.10-12246-g786c8248dbd3, it still contains > > #define __NR_uretprobe 463 The file is currently unused and replaced with scripts/syscall.tbl, my plan was to remove the old file in the 6.12 syscall cleanups. The number in scripts/syscall.tbl is now 467, so its users (arc, arm64, csky, hegagon, loongarch, nios2 openrisc and riscv) have the same number as on x86. However, the corresponding change did not make it into the other syscall.tbl files (alpha, arm, m68k, microblaze, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh, sparc and xtensa), which is rather inconsistent. I think we should definitely make all non-x86 architectures behave the same way, either with or without an entry for uretprobe. There are three ways do do this: a) remove it from both include/uapi/asm/unistd.h and scripts/syscall.tbl, and change the x86-64 system call to a private number such as 335 b) remove it from both include/uapi/asm/unistd.h and scripts/syscall.tbl, but leave the number at 467 c) add the syscall to all other architectures for consistency, but continue to have it return -ENOSYS.
