[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 15:58:25 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: erny hombre <hombre67@....at>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: clone(),sys_clone() arguments
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 02:36:20PM +0200, erny hombre wrote:
> 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 ?
Linux's arch/arm/Kconfig defines CLONE_BACKWARDS, which means the
argument order is (flags, sp, ptid, tp, ctid) -- see kernel/fork.c. I
don't know where you're getting the pt_regs argument from. That's not
part of the syscall interface ever; it is or was a kernel-internal
thing in some kernel versions.
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.
