Re: Is adding an argument to an existing syscall okay?
From: Peter Oskolkov <hidden>
Date: 2020-11-17 18:59:04
Also in:
linux-toolchains
My assumption here was that applications that are aware of the new API will always provide three parameters, while older applications will continue calling the syscall with two. I can't think of a situation/architecture where this will break anything. Thanks, Peter On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:44 AM Florian Weimer [off-list ref] wrote:
* Segher Boessenkool:quoted
But this isn't variadic in the sense of "..." -- on Power that always passes the unspecified arguments in memory, while in this case it just passes in either two or three registers. I don't know any arg where that would not work, given the Linux system call restrictions. This is similar to the "open" system call.Exactly. You cannot call the open function through a non-variadic function pointer. I've seen it cause stack corruption in practice: commit c7774174beffe9a8d29dd4fb38bbed43ece1cecd Author: Andreas Schneider [off-list ref] Date: Wed Aug 2 13:21:59 2017 +0200 swrap: Fix prototype of open[64] to prevent segfault on ppc64le The calling conventions for vaarg are different on ppc64le. The patch fixes segfaults on that platform. Thanks to Florian Weimer who helped debugging it! Signed-off-by: Andreas Schneider [off-list ref] Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher [off-list ref] <https://git.samba.org/?p=socket_wrapper.git;a=commitdiff;h=c7774174beffe> It is possible to implement the open function in such a way that it does not have this problem (simply do not use the parameter save area, using assembler if necessary), but it's another obscure step that libc implementers would have to take.