From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/13205 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Patrick Oppenlander Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm asm for vfork Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 08:29:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180430013622.28792-1-patrick.oppenlander@gmail.com> <20180430013622.28792-2-patrick.oppenlander@gmail.com> <20180430020944.GF1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20180718023526.GO1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20180906151914.GH1878@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20180907020559.GI1878@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027af8005754221a7" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1536301657 16153 195.159.176.226 (7 Sep 2018 06:27:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 06:27:37 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-13221-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Sep 07 08:27:33 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fyAEv-000466-7v for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 08:27:33 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 9449 invoked by uid 550); 7 Sep 2018 06:29:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 9431 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2018 06:29:39 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xn8jJMiy4FOJT8wSBLLLdk4msVYklPkIXtyCZ/YoL1E=; b=rwswqMWg4B0imjNl0Y9D1e7/Qc8lah/oDyXNuhU0QD3IiFVdAQ8YiRhvg5nuJcPriw UP2qF0FX0d1pkBy50W100l+TQv3BdYAu8XsWKA9phRJQIiarhiT+DYqrk9g8U+l+lwaq giWC3l22g4S2xWBgD4RZ7ETcAfgl6QMiWMGGSSxkQU42OOyenciRlgqg/tbAWeF7eRDy vm+eNYRvuwNVI8qVapvDAg2uuA61Vr5dEmbxc1oHp/zSvoFOufI2RZWheWmorx8OchXU 6C5pjeZQjpqLbEMvzh+Dx1dTPnx0eQalQ9L6IR8zrEWOEp6ft0i4msRtqnpOcEn23vRO 7xPA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=xn8jJMiy4FOJT8wSBLLLdk4msVYklPkIXtyCZ/YoL1E=; b=bkiUmQ6QptXofyqTF4RO2M8bGXhMM2VtljyuriQ5bGq+gXXhXLSsZzgQAcH5KWZiuB IXsMezA4dJUYqC9Knjw1HWcCgByAi8jXJda+/vVNYdei0raF6FtdSNYjj2z8QXlC0WJz QySQIPHwubFrpeVPGj6hAm80ukn1qD3bQE5O9nsvqEO/BJJo2vdKuwMGasLWlGZwsfWm R6giBvRJPhcUL1S5wSsU8qu2evtC+gNlX/FUHdo2TWoJBJhZh1lqkq+NtajPsjop2vrd pyUmuSEw+IsYp6zu0TFCxgnElgoSV1SBaiTDCgPwgtAv9g+G2UcaNERlj8RWiva7m7Qf zntA== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51AWes292PQoXprCJuQPUl3EihvUDz3oMGXcu2By6XeikFXHL99g Bv1RNnwY4PRlsZEEW8kypcet0L7LW/xLehvOLVqwqsEH X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdab5VZazWBFUJc6rUMMmg5T+iH0FJRgMNKhn4J+Smh/yFrouoa6vvN6B4u/unxTqXnqkU0RreiWCFNu0DCSz8Y= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9791:: with SMTP id y17-v6mr2801812lji.41.1536301768092; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 23:29:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180907020559.GI1878@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:13205 Archived-At: --00000000000027af8005754221a7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri., 7 Sep. 2018, 04:06 Rich Felker, wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:19:14AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:02:14PM +0200, Patrick Oppenlander wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:14 AM Patrick Oppenlander > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:35 PM Rich Felker > wrote: > > > > > I think there needs to be a ".hidden __syscall_ret" (by de facto > musl > > > > > convention, on the line before it's used) here. It *might* be ok > > > > > having the reference omit .hidden as long as the definition is > hidden > > > > > at link-time (which it is), but I'm not convinced the tooling won't > > > > > complain about a branch to a destination that's not known to be > > > > > link-time constant displacement. > > > > > > > > If that's the case i386, s390x, x86_64 and x32 may need attention in > > > > vfork.s as they're doing it the same way. > > > > > > > > > If you have no other changes or comments I'm happy to just --amend > > > > > that into the patch when I commit it. > > > > > > > > No problem with that at all. > > > > > > > > > > I guess this one slipped through the cracks for 1.20. > > > > > > Any chance of you taking a look soon? > > > > Indeed! Sorry about that. I'm in the middle of a big shuffle of messy > > stuff in the source tree right now, but ping me again soon if you > > don't see action on it in the next couple days. > > I have it queued in my tree now, along with fixing .hidden for the > other archs and the cleanup work I'm doing. Depending on how the rest > of this goes there might still be some delay seeing it, but the risk > of it being forgotten is basically zero now. :-) > Perfect, thanks! I'm not in a hurry for it (away from dayjob for a month traveling) just wanted to send a gentle reminder so that it wasn't forgotten. Patrick --00000000000027af8005754221a7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri.,= 7 Sep. 2018, 04:06 Rich Felker, <dal= ias@libc.org> wrote:
On Thu,= Sep 06, 2018 at 11:19:14AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:02:14PM +0200, Patrick Oppenlander wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:14 AM Patrick Oppenlander
> > <patrick.oppenlander@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:35 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.or= g> wrote:
> > > > I think there needs to be a ".hidden __syscall_ret= " (by de facto musl
> > > > convention, on the line before it's used) here. It = *might* be ok
> > > > having the reference omit .hidden as long as the defini= tion is hidden
> > > > at link-time (which it is), but I'm not convinced t= he tooling won't
> > > > complain about a branch to a destination that's not= known to be
> > > > link-time constant displacement.
> > >
> > > If that's the case=C2=A0 i386, s390x, x86_64 and x32 may= need attention in
> > > vfork.s as they're doing it the same way.
> > >
> > > > If you have no other changes or comments I'm happy = to just --amend
> > > > that into the patch when I commit it.
> > >
> > > No problem with that at all.
> > >
> >
> > I guess this one slipped through the cracks for 1.20.
> >
> > Any chance of you taking a look soon?
>
> Indeed! Sorry about that. I'm in the middle of a big shuffle of me= ssy
> stuff in the source tree right now, but ping me again soon if you
> don't see action on it in the next couple days.

I have it queued in my tree now, along with fixing .hidden for the
other archs and the cleanup work I'm doing. Depending on how the rest of this goes there might still be some delay seeing it, but the risk
of it being forgotten is basically zero now. :-)

Perfect, thanks!

I'm not in a hurry for it (awa= y from dayjob for a month traveling) just wanted to send a gentle reminder = so that it wasn't forgotten.

Patrick
--00000000000027af8005754221a7--