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=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 12785 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2022 10:58:01 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 13 Apr 2022 10:58:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 11800 invoked by uid 550); 13 Apr 2022 10:57:58 -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 28394 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2022 07:19:28 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1649834355; bh=e9cZUlx2TuRZpwMt/YOWLYrIN/XZcQ4jBG8srkLT5o8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=USY7Ec5vPg3R6y0stFccU48ZMoxGIr1dgWrJ9BX5yCVisrg11deVmCWuAHLYBfkan ONhmJS1oBg9rvynhyYI0i7rTA8wN9IS9z4bw+T8lLQHcRFyCREW08EnP/YmJTyvX+w kbEM8gabhG5qjmokJJDAKkDmK7C3ZMYGsC3egXYac20SYI9wtg6ZWLq+vfQ3MuVllT DTKFf7OxIpwK8yQVxMx6l5SuZ5NZxAeyLhlU+FQLwB1HaskYcZ6gvNRz7iGZ0aKfqQ JU9sWHXLsO8866PSKWKOvgXDN3IIt0+PxELLatnBQk7DwnlaoLWTMZW4YMhsZmRqFL o4UuW9J0Sj6aA== Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:19:11 +0200 From: Christian Brauner To: Rich Felker Cc: Arnd Bergmann , musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20220413071911.tscjirx7byi52iew@wittgenstein> References: <64c0ef49-4618-8eca-c826-bd2a840c284b@loongson.cn> <20220331184719.GH7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1fec7c01-ea91-aa7c-d6d5-474c00d9347c@loongson.cn> <20220406160042.GB8499@voyager> <8dfcd620-4143-7450-8429-a89ed2264620@loongson.cn> <20220409131939.GK7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20220409131939.GK7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Subject: Re: [musl] Re: add loongarch64 port On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 09:19:39AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 01:06:13PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 5:55 AM 王洪亮 wrote: > > > 在 2022/4/8 下午2:46, Arnd Bergmann 写道: > > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:21 AM 王洪亮 wrote: > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=fa729c4df5589 > > > > > > > > What happens in the clone() syscall in the kernel is that the size > > > > gets added to the initial pointer on normal architectures (parisc and ia64 > > > > being the exceptions). If you already have the stack pointer, I think you can > > > > just pass size=0 as we do internally in the kernel. > > > > > > > > If there was a port of musl to one of the architectures that does it > > > > differently, > > > > then changing callers such as > > > > > > > > pid = __clone(child, stack+sizeof stack, > > > > CLONE_VM|CLONE_VFORK|SIGCHLD, &args); > > > > > > > > would be required, and the separate size argument in clone3() could > > > > help keep that hidden from musl. > > > > > > > > Arnd > > > > > > > > > In LoongArch,the stack is grows down. > > > > > > As previous suggested,I implement __NR_clone3 syscall within __clone() > > > in loongarch port,based on __clone() interface unchanged and the > > > architecture-independent code of call __clone() unchanged. > > > > > > In __NR_clone3 syscall,I need pass the lowest address of memory area to > > > clone_args.stack,and pass stack_size to clone_args.stack_size(stack_size > > > must not be 0) > > > if (kargs->stack_size == 0) > > > return false; > > > > > > current,the __clone()'s input parameters have no "stack_size",so I can't > > > pass valid(must be size!=0) stack_size to clone3. > > > > > > your meaning is pass stack_size=0 when the input parameter "stack" of > > > __clone() > > > is already stack point? but pass stack_size=0 is illegal. > > > > Ah, you are right, that doesn't work at the moment. You dropped Christian > > from the Cc list, adding him back because he probably has an idea > > for how to address that. > > > > It looks like it could be fixed for the internal callers of __clone() by > > adding a __clone3() call that takes the size argument, and falls back > > to calling __clone() on architectures that have that. I don't see how > > one would do it for the generic clone() library function call though. > > size=4k and passing stack-4k? O_o > > This seems like a ridiculous kernel regression to require a size when > none may be available... Hm, clone3() is a separate system call. The aim had never been to provide 1:1 compatibility with legacy clone(). So I fail to see how this is a regression. (I'd appreciate if we could stay away from unnecessary qualifiers like "ridiculous". That doesn't really help the thread in any way.)