From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RDNS_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 4638 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2020 16:35:13 -0000 Received-SPF: pass (mother.openwall.net: domain of lists.openwall.com designates 195.42.179.200 as permitted sender) receiver=inbox.vuxu.org; client-ip=195.42.179.200 envelope-from= Received: from unknown (HELO mother.openwall.net) (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2020 16:35:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 15848 invoked by uid 550); 20 Mar 2020 16:35:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 15827 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2020 16:35:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 12:34:56 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Andreas =?utf-8?B?RHLDtnNjaGVy?= Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20200320163456.GB11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20200311005553.GE11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200311014039.GF11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <5a45c0f9-21de-6649-d4d9-3d0804c3ca0e@droescher.ch> <20200311021808.GG11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200311230848.GJ11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200311230848.GJ11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] mips32 little endian -ENOSYS is not -(-ENOSYS) On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 07:08:48PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:08:11PM +0100, Andreas Dröscher wrote: > > Am 11.03.20 um 03:18 schrieb Rich Felker: > > >On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 03:08:22AM +0100, Andreas Dröscher wrote: > > >>The current implementation of __syscall5, __syscall6 and __syscall7 > > >>(those use caller saved registers) violate the calling conventions > > >>of MIPS32 Linux Kernels prior 2.6.35. Those were assuming that the > > >>instruction immediately preceding the SYSCALL instruction was an > > >>instruction for loading the syscall number. > > >> > > >>I’ll will try to rearrange the stack pushes to accommodate this > > >>requirement and report back if I manage to come up with something > > >>presentable. > > > > > >Uhg, so commit 604f8d3d8b08ee4f548de193050ef93a7753c2e0 was probably > > >wrong and there was a reason for the nonsensical code it removed: > > >making old broken kernels happy. I'm not sure if you can just revert > > >it or need to make new changes. > > > > > >Do you know if this "rule" applies to n32/n64 too or just o32? > > > > I've reverted 604f8d3d8b08ee4f548de193050ef93a7753c2e0 and additionally > > replaced all: > > return r7 ? -r2 : r2; > > with > > return (r7 && r2 > 0) ? -r2 : r2; > > > > My software stack (built with OE-Core Zeus) now works almost flawlessly. > > Some Daemons have hiccups but those most likely come from source > > that expects syscalls to always succeed and on my system they are > > simply missing. > > > > Thank you for your helping to sort this out. > > > > You asked about n32/n64. I am not familiar with more modern MIPS Architectures. > > Therefore I can't give any informed answer. I found some documentation: > > https://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/Syscall but it does not give a > > definitive answer. It just points towards "all 3 mips are effected > > by the ordering requirement". > > I'm posting a patch series now. I've pushed a version of this upstream now, a long with a lot of other commits that had backed up in my queue. Please let me know if this does or doesn't fix the issues with mips on old kernels. Rich