From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 27387 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2022 12:11:20 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 11 Apr 2022 12:11:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 18321 invoked by uid 550); 11 Apr 2022 12:11:16 -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 18289 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2022 12:11:16 -0000 Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:11:00 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com, Christian Brauner Message-ID: <20220411121100.GO7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20220406160042.GB8499@voyager> <8dfcd620-4143-7450-8429-a89ed2264620@loongson.cn> <20220409131939.GK7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220409133044.GL7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220410152636.GM7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] Re: add loongarch64 port On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:03:13AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 5:27 PM Rich Felker wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 3:31 PM Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually, if there aren't yet archs lacking SYS_clone, this API > > > > regression may be a good argument not to drop SYS_clone on new archs > > > > yet until there's a way for new archs to get the same behavior > > > > (unspecified stack size). > > > > > > That is a good point, but it also appears that the behavior of > > > clone3() is unintentional > > > here, I'm fairly sure it was meant to be a drop-in replacement for clone() with > > > additional features. > > > > > > Not sure what the best fix for this is, as the check for size==0 was clearly > > > intentional, but seems to prevent this from working. A special flag to ignore > > > the size, or a magic size value like -1ull might work, but neither of them > > > is a great interface. > > > > Are there archs already affected, or will this one be the first? > > We have not added any other architectures since clone3 got added, > so this is the first one. In that case I really think __NR_clone should just be kept for now. It doesn't really cost anything on the kernel side and it avoids a dependency on working out how __NR_clone3 is going to fix the missing functionality. Rich