[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:11:00 -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 Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:03:13AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 5:27 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 3:31 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, if there aren't yet archs lacking SYS_clone, this API
> > > > regression may be a good argument not to drop SYS_clone on new archs
> > > > yet until there's a way for new archs to get the same behavior
> > > > (unspecified stack size).
> > >
> > > That is a good point, but it also appears that the behavior of
> > > clone3() is unintentional
> > > here, I'm fairly sure it was meant to be a drop-in replacement for clone() with
> > > additional features.
> > >
> > > Not sure what the best fix for this is, as the check for size==0 was clearly
> > > intentional, but seems to prevent this from working. A special flag to ignore
> > > the size, or a magic size value like -1ull might work, but neither of them
> > > is a great interface.
> >
> > Are there archs already affected, or will this one be the first?
>
> We have not added any other architectures since clone3 got added,
> so this is the first one.
In that case I really think __NR_clone should just be kept for now. It
doesn't really cost anything on the kernel side and it avoids a
dependency on working out how __NR_clone3 is going to fix the missing
functionality.
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.
