[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180614131931.1a7a768a@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:19:31 +0200
From: Natanael Copa <ncopa@...inelinux.org>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: broken __kernel_mode_t affecting some big endian archs
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:54:42 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> It's been semi-known for a long time (I say semi-, because nobody's
> had the setup to test most of them well, or at least nobody I'm
> communicating with regularly) that some archs are failing libc-test
> sysvipc tests. I think I've tracked down the root cause.
>
> Linux defined __kernel_mode_t as short on some old archs, and used it
> in place of mode_t in the ipc_perm structure. The field is padded out
> to 32 bits, so on little endian archs it's no problem for us to just
> (as we do) ignore the incorrect type and declare the structure with
> mode_t, as POSIX requires. However on big-endian archs, the padding is
> on the wrong side and this trick doesn't work.
>
> On MIPS we fixed a similar issue in struct stat, where dev_t was
> incorrectly padded, with a fixup in syscall_arch.h. However this time
> a large number of archs are affected, and patching them all up
> individually seems nasty.
>
> My leaning is to have syscall_arch.h expose a macro indicating the
> bug, and have msgctl, semctl, and shmctl each do the fixup if it's
> set.
>
> FWIW the affected archs seem to be (only in big endian variants):
> - ARM
> - M68k (in-progress port)
> - Microblaze
> - SH
> - Sparc (future port)
Is s390s affected too?
-nc
> Thoughts?
>
> Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
