Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arch: wire-up clone3() syscall
From: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Date: 2019-06-21 15:30:20
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:20:15PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:18 PM Christian Brauner [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:37:50AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:quoted
I never really liked having __ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE here because it was the only one that a new architecture needed to set: all the other __ARCH_WANT_* are for system calls that are already superseded by newer ones, so a new architecture would start out with an empty list. Since __ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE3 replaces __ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE for new architectures, how about leaving __ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE untouched but instead__ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE is left untouched. :)quoted
coming up with the reverse for clone3 and mark the architectures that specifically don't want it (if any)?Afaict, your suggestion is more or less the same thing what is done here. So I'm not sure it buys us anything apart from future architectures not needing to set __ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE3. I expect the macro above to be only here temporarily until all arches have caught up and we're sure that they don't require assembly stubs (cf. [1]). A decision I'd leave to the maintainers (since even for nios2 we were kind of on the fence what exactly the sys_clone stub was supposed to do). But I'm happy to take a patch from you if it's equally or more simple than this one right here. In any case, linux-next should be fine on all arches with this fixup now.I've looked at bit more closely at the nios2 implementation, and I believe this is purely an artifact of this file being copied over from m68k, which also has an odd definition. The glibc side of nios2 clone() is also odd in other ways, but that appears to be unrelated to the kernel ABI. I think the best option here would be to not have any special cases and just hook up clone3() the same way on all architectures, with no #ifdef at all. If it turns out to not work on a particular architecture later, they can still disable the syscall then.
Hm, if you believe that this is fine and want to "vouch" for it by whipping up a patch that replaces the wiring up done in [1] I'm happy to take it. :) Otherwise I'd feel more comfortable not adding all arches at once. [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux.git/log/?h=clone Christian