Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:01:26 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:11 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > 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. Yes, fair enough. Arnd
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.