[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220409131939.GK7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 09:19:39 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port
On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 01:06:13PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 5:55 AM 王洪亮 <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> > 在 2022/4/8 下午2:46, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
> > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:21 AM 王洪亮 <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=fa729c4df5589
> > >
> > > What happens in the clone() syscall in the kernel is that the size
> > > gets added to the initial pointer on normal architectures (parisc and ia64
> > > being the exceptions). If you already have the stack pointer, I think you can
> > > just pass size=0 as we do internally in the kernel.
> > >
> > > If there was a port of musl to one of the architectures that does it
> > > differently,
> > > then changing callers such as
> > >
> > > pid = __clone(child, stack+sizeof stack,
> > > CLONE_VM|CLONE_VFORK|SIGCHLD, &args);
> > >
> > > would be required, and the separate size argument in clone3() could
> > > help keep that hidden from musl.
> > >
> > > Arnd
> >
> >
> > In LoongArch,the stack is grows down.
> >
> > As previous suggested,I implement __NR_clone3 syscall within __clone()
> > in loongarch port,based on __clone() interface unchanged and the
> > architecture-independent code of call __clone() unchanged.
> >
> > In __NR_clone3 syscall,I need pass the lowest address of memory area to
> > clone_args.stack,and pass stack_size to clone_args.stack_size(stack_size
> > must not be 0)
> > if (kargs->stack_size == 0)
> > return false;
> >
> > current,the __clone()'s input parameters have no "stack_size",so I can't
> > pass valid(must be size!=0) stack_size to clone3.
> >
> > your meaning is pass stack_size=0 when the input parameter "stack" of
> > __clone()
> > is already stack point? but pass stack_size=0 is illegal.
>
> Ah, you are right, that doesn't work at the moment. You dropped Christian
> from the Cc list, adding him back because he probably has an idea
> for how to address that.
>
> It looks like it could be fixed for the internal callers of __clone() by
> adding a __clone3() call that takes the size argument, and falls back
> to calling __clone() on architectures that have that. I don't see how
> one would do it for the generic clone() library function call though.
size=4k and passing stack-4k? O_o
This seems like a ridiculous kernel regression to require a size when
none may be available...
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.
