Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFE: update v2.5.x syscall tables to v6.12-rc7 #439

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: release-2.5
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

pcmoore
Copy link
Member

@pcmoore pcmoore commented Nov 11, 2024

This is a backport of #435 with the syscall table generated specifically for the release-2.5 branch.

xen0n and others added 3 commits November 11, 2024 13:23
Apart from de-duplication of logic, this refactor is also going to help
syncing to the Linux 6.11+ definitions, where all architectures are
converted to source their syscall definitions from syscall.tbl files.

The change is tested on Linux 6.2 sources to not affect the generated
syscalls.csv apart from timestamp changes.

Signed-off-by: WANG Xuerui <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
(imported from commit cfce7b0)
The aarch64, loongarch64 and riscv64 architectures have their syscall
table sources changed to scripts/syscall.tbl, from the original
inclusion of asm-generic/unistd.h. Make the script recognize the new
format for these architectures.

Signed-off-by: WANG Xuerui <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
(imported from commit 26e2b31)
No direct cherry-pick from main due to supported architectures and
other changes.

Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

coverage: 89.523%. remained the same
when pulling 4830edc on pcmoore:working-release_25
into f0b04ab on seccomp:release-2.5.

Copy link
Contributor

@xen0n xen0n left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the backport!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants