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 21754 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2022 09:36:43 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 14 Apr 2022 09:36:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 25641 invoked by uid 550); 14 Apr 2022 09:36:42 -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 25609 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2022 09:36:41 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1649928988; bh=UJXzBapEQUZyOoirELNmy+jAmTGsih7WWJi6dV2SBew=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HeXlyvjeOPNR4ncGF0xoMv1CiZTR71J1Mw4VWP813gl3aFQ5BfeF295mTvYVNCGEa 6kwWrZs/FpJek0+OqwVH/dZmh2LvEMd4jnulkRf6agra9irHWOmUN9ytwYtL8WqdA2 X7IZ3KLnZu9pBJKWvwNHgMA3j9SsOHDiSY6Xr27eCp148Ue4hrRaZxnwxBJWYzfGlz wl3qXmOUviJ1uwfNW7q2KOPEz53N3IxlEBlQuk1vGUzUxTTff5aYik7rcbORR8IK06 dGN4cRaxe3KedivBnnBav44JEtproVQ9SH++hY1t5N1m1EiZL4oXkZiGmbicucvmlI D6Wbv1bwXZinA== Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:36:24 +0200 From: Christian Brauner To: Rich Felker Cc: Arnd Bergmann , musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20220414093624.57kdl26xro6vbap4@wittgenstein> References: <20220409131939.GK7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220409133044.GL7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220413072606.44wwkk64xshn5mmm@wittgenstein> <20220413090425.rmprwzpgpztianin@wittgenstein> <20220413140930.GV7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220413140930.GV7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Subject: Re: [musl] Re: add loongarch64 port On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:09:31AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > 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. Ok, I'll try to have a patch ready early next week since I'm currently out sick.