[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <trinity-8342f794-8d6e-4046-bd20-2afef4490861-1593261380184@3c-app-gmx-bs50>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 14:36:20 +0200
From: erny hombre <hombre67@....at>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: clone(),sys_clone() arguments
Hello,
I am writing an operating system for an ARM processor (Cortex-A9). For the user programs I want to use musl libc.
I am adding a layer between musl and my os to translate linux system calls into native system calls.
For pthread_create the syscall sys_clone is used. This syscall is not called directly. The library
function clone() is used instead. The arguments of clone() and the raw system call sys_clone differ:
int clone(int (*fn)(void *), void *child_stack, int flags, void *arg, ...
/* pid_t *ptid, struct user_desc *tls, pid_t *ctid */ );
long sys_clone(unsigned long flags, void *child_stack, void *ptid, void *ctid, struct pt_regs *regs);
Musl uses __clone to reorder clone() arguments to the arguments expected by sys_clone:
/musl-1.2.0/src/thread/arm/clone.s:
__clone:
stmfd sp!,{r4,r5,r6,r7}
mov r7,#120
mov r6,r3
mov r5,r0
mov r0,r2
and r1,r1,#-16
ldr r2,[sp,#16]
ldr r3,[sp,#20]
ldr r4,[sp,#24]
svc 0 ; sys_clone system call
...
I think that the last two arguments for sys_clone (r3..ctid, r4..regs) are taken in the wrong
order from the clone parameters ([sp,#20]..tls, [sp,#24]..ctid).
Do I miss something or is this a bug ?
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.
