[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220512121131.GH7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 08:11:31 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...il.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
Yanteng Si <siyanteng@...ngson.cn>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Xuerui Wang <kernel@...0n.name>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V9 13/24] LoongArch: Add system call support
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 09:21:13AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:12 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 09:11:56AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 12:00 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > .....
> > > > I can try and move a poc for this up the todo list.
> > > >
> > > > Without an approach like this certain sandboxes will fallback to
> > > > ENOSYSing system calls they can't filter. This is a generic problem
> > > > though with clone3() being one promiment example.
> > >
> > > Thank you for the detailed reply. It sounds to me like this will eventually have
> > > to get solved anyway, so we could move ahead without clone() on loongarch,
> > > and just not have support for Chrome until this is fully solved.
> > >
> > > As both the glibc and musl ports are being proposed for inclusion right
> > > now, we should try to come to a decision so the libc ports can adjust if
> > > necessary. Adding both mailing lists to Cc here, the discussion is archived
> > > at [1].
> > >
> > > Arnd
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arch/20220509100058.vmrgn5fkk3ayt63v@wittgenstein/
> >
> > Having read about the seccomp issue, I think it's a very strong
> > argument that __NR_clone should be kept permanently for all future
> > archs.
>
> Ok, let's keep clone() around for all architectures then. We should probably
> just remove the __ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE macro and build the
> code into the kernel unconditionally, but at the moment there
> are still private versions for ia64 and sparc with the same name as
> the generic version. Both are also still lacking support for clone3() and
> don't have anyone actively working on them.
>
> In this case, we probably don't need to change clone3() to allow the
> zero-length stack after all, and the wrapper that was added to the
> musl port should get removed again.
I still think disallowing a zero length (unknown length with caller
providing the start address only) stack is a gratuitous limitation on
the clone3 interface, and would welcome leaving the change to allow
zero-length in place. There does not seem to be any good justification
for forbidding it, and it does pose other real-world obstruction to
use. For example if your main thread had exited (or if you're forking
from a non-main thread) and you wanted to create a new process using
the old main thread stack as your stack, you would not know a
size/lowest-address, only a starting address from which it extends
some long (and possibly expanding) amount.
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.
