Re: [PATCH 20/25] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 11 May 2016 17:59:01 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:55:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 May 2016 11:04:38 Yury Norov wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:04:16AM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > >>Ok, I will test the ltp syscall test.
> > > > >>With this changes, the issue I mentioned should be fixed. But we still
> > > > >>use mmap2 syscall for ILP32 application when we pass the offset instead
> > > > >>of page offset. Is it correct?
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't remember. It's probably not important whether we have the shift
> > > > >in there, as long as it's independent of the actual kernel page size and
> > > > >user space and kernel agree on the calling conventions.
> > > > Well. I am ok with where to shift the pages size because we get the same
> > > > result. I was just thinking if we should get rid of the name of mmap2 in our
> > > > ILP32 porting. Actually, it is mmap but we name it as mmap2. User may confused
> > > > if they do not know the implementations.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > This is what generic unistd.h does. If you want to change it, you'd
> > > change each arch that uses generic unistd.h.
> > 
> > Generic unistd.h has this:
> > 
> > #ifdef __SYSCALL_COMPAT
> > #define __SC_COMP_3264(_nr, _32, _64, _comp) __SYSCALL(_nr, _comp)
> > #else
> > #define __SC_COMP_3264(_nr, _32, _64, _comp) __SC_3264(_nr, _32, _64)
> > #endif
> > 
> > #define __NR3264_mmap 222
> > __SC_3264(__NR3264_mmap, sys_mmap2, sys_mmap)
> > 
> > 
> > #if __BITS_PER_LONG == 64 && !defined(__SYSCALL_COMPAT)
> > #define __NR_mmap __NR3264_mmap
> > #else
> > #define __NR_mmap2 __NR3264_mmap
> > #endif
> > 
> > So by default we get __NR_mmap2 and sys_mmap2 on 32-bit ABIs, but
> > __NR_mmap and sys_mmap on 64-bit ABIs, as it should be.
> > 
> > The problem is that arch/arm64/kernel/sys_ilp32.c now overrides
> > this to use __NR_mmap2 with sys_mmap, so we have a mismatch. I think
> > we should either override both the implementation and the number,
> > or neither of them.
> 
> I would vote for "neither of them" (so we use __NR_mmap2 and sys_mmap2)
> to keep it close to new 32-bit architectures, even though we would have
> some shifts by 12 in both glibc and kernel.

I don't think the shifts are a problem, the main downside would be
the limit to 44 bits of file offsets (16TB files), but it's also
unclear if that is a practical problem at all. If it is, we run
into the same problem on all other 32-bit architectures too.

	Arnd