On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week >> regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). >> >> The idea come up in the context of syzkaller, syscall fuzzer, which >> has descriptions for 1000+ syscalls mostly concentrating on types of >> arguments and return values. However, problems are that a small group >> of people can't write descriptions for all syscalls; can't keep them >> up-to-date and doesn't have necessary domain expertise to do correct >> descriptions in some cases. >> >> We identified a surprisingly large number of potential users for such >> descriptions: > > Let me add one more: consolidation of all the incompatible arch > syscall tables. A sufficiently descriptive format should be parseable > at build time to generate the syscall tables. Hi Andy, What exactly info do we need for this? Anything that just requires a bit of info per syscall looks like the lowest hanging fruit (as compared to info per every ioctl discrimination, and complete args description). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
