[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:54:49 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: 王洪亮 <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn>,
musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:33:25PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 05:09:08PM +0800, 王洪亮 wrote:
> >
> > 在 2022/4/14 下午5:36, Christian Brauner 写道:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:09:31AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:25:05PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:04 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:26:06AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > > > The normal rule is that we don't define obsolete system calls in new
> > > > > > > architectures when an improved variant has been added, e.g. oldoldstat,
> > > > > > > oldstat, stat, newstat and stat64 have all been replaced by statx over
> > > > > > > the decades. I was expecting the same to be true for clone(), but if
> > > > > > > clone3() is not meant as a replacement, we can keep both around.
> > > > > > No, I agree with you on this and would like to only implement clone3()
> > > > > > on new architectures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I'm asking is whether removing the size == 0 check is enough to
> > > > > > unblock the missing behavior and whether you'd be on board with removing
> > > > > > the check?
> > > > > I think that's ok here, since we'd only rely on this for loongarch64 at the
> > > > > moment. It would probably need to be documented in the man page
> > > > > as a special case though.
> > > > I'm okay with removing the check for size==0 (so size==0 will be
> > > > allowed) and dropping __NR_clone on new archs, as long as it's noted
> > > > in comments/documentation that size==0 is explicitly allowed so nobody
> > > > breaks this in the future.
> > > Ok, I'll try to have a patch ready early next week since I'm currently
> > > out sick.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm implementing __NR_clone3 syscall within __clone().
> >
> > I have another problem:CLONE_DETACHED
> >
> > in musl,internal call __clone()(such as __pthread_create()),the input
> > parameter flags
> >
> > has been set CLONE_DETACHED ,in kernel,there is a check in
> > clone3_args_valid(),
> >
> > if the condition met,return false.
> >
> > How to deal with this problem?
>
> CLONE_DETACHED is meaningles since Linux on 2.6.2. There really should
> be <=2.6.1 living kernel anywhere where CLONE_DETACHED does anything.
> I've documented that in detail under [1] as:
>
> CLONE_DETACHED (historical)
> For a while (during the Linux 2.5 development series)
> there was a CLONE_DETACHED flag, which caused the parent
> not to receive a signal when the child terminated.
> Ultimately, the effect of this flag was subsumed under the
> CLONE_THREAD flag and by the time Linux 2.6.0 was
> released, this flag had no effect. Starting in Linux
> 2.6.2, the need to give this flag together with
> CLONE_THREAD disappeared.
>
> This flag is still defined, but it is usually ignored when
> calling clone(). However, see the description of
> CLONE_PIDFD for some exceptions.
>
> [1]: https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/clone.2.html
>
> Would it be possible to drop this flag from musl's pthread_create()
> implementation? (Iirc, glibc dropped CLONE_DETACHED in 2004.)
I think __clone should just mask it on newer archs. We support Linux
2.6.0 and if lack of CLONE_DETACHED causes bogus signals on 2.6.0 we
should keep it. If it can be established that this doesn't happen and
that CLONE_DETACHED just affected non-thread clones, we can probably
safely drop it.
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.
