[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200611210230.GH31009@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:02:30 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org,
musl@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux powerpc new system call instruction and ABI
Hi!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 06:12:01PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Calling convention
> ------------------
> The proposal is for scv 0 to provide the standard Linux system call ABI
> with the following differences from sc convention[1]:
>
> - lr is to be volatile across scv calls. This is necessary because the
> scv instruction clobbers lr. From previous discussion, this should be
> possible to deal with in GCC clobbers and CFI.
>
> - cr1 and cr5-cr7 are volatile. This matches the C ABI and would allow the
> kernel system call exit to avoid restoring the volatile cr registers
> (although we probably still would anyway to avoid information leaks).
>
> - Error handling: The consensus among kernel, glibc, and musl is to move to
> using negative return values in r3 rather than CR0[SO]=1 to indicate error,
> which matches most other architectures, and is closer to a function call.
What about cr0 then? Will it be volatile as well (exactly like for
function calls)?
> Notes
> -----
> - r0,r4-r8 are documented as volatile in the ABI, but the kernel patch as
> submitted currently preserves them. This is to leave room for deciding
> which way to go with these.
The kernel has to set it to *something* that doesn't leak information ;-)
Segher
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.
