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 4260 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2022 14:09:46 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 13 Apr 2022 14:09:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 3913 invoked by uid 550); 13 Apr 2022 14:09:44 -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 3881 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2022 14:09:43 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:09:31 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Christian Brauner , musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20220413140930.GV7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20220409131939.GK7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220409133044.GL7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220413072606.44wwkk64xshn5mmm@wittgenstein> <20220413090425.rmprwzpgpztianin@wittgenstein> 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 Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:25:05PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:04 AM Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:26:06AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > The normal rule is that we don't define obsolete system calls in new > > > architectures when an improved variant has been added, e.g. oldoldstat, > > > oldstat, stat, newstat and stat64 have all been replaced by statx over > > > the decades. I was expecting the same to be true for clone(), but if > > > clone3() is not meant as a replacement, we can keep both around. > > > > No, I agree with you on this and would like to only implement clone3() > > on new architectures. > > > > What I'm asking is whether removing the size == 0 check is enough to > > unblock the missing behavior and whether you'd be on board with removing > > the check? > > I think that's ok here, since we'd only rely on this for loongarch64 at the > moment. It would probably need to be documented in the man page > as a special case though. I'm okay with removing the check for size==0 (so size==0 will be allowed) and dropping __NR_clone on new archs, as long as it's noted in comments/documentation that size==0 is explicitly allowed so nobody breaks this in the future. Rich