[PATCH 20/25] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it
From: Zhangjian Bamvor <hidden>
Date: 2016-05-12 12:54:03
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-s390, lkml
From: Zhangjian Bamvor <hidden>
Date: 2016-05-12 12:54:03
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-s390, lkml
Hi, On 2016/5/12 16:24, Yury Norov wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:45:53AM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote: [...]quoted
quoted
Hmm, that is indeed tricky. I think COMPAT_SYSCALL_WRAP4 rightfully refuses the loff_t argument here, as the common case is that this is not possible.It works if I apply the following patch, I defined the wrong `__TYPE_IS_xxx` yesterday. Should we merge this into ILP32 series or send the compat.h and syscalls.h individually? The current series of ILP32 is a little bit long and hard to review.diff --git a/include/linux/compat.h b/include/linux/compat.h index ba6ebe0..22a9565 100644 --- a/include/linux/compat.h +++ b/include/linux/compat.h@@ -747,7 +747,8 @@ asmlinkage long compat_sys_fanotify_mark(int, unsigned int, __u32, __u32, #ifndef __SC_COMPAT_CAST #define __SC_COMPAT_CAST(t, a) ({ \ BUILD_BUG_ON((sizeof(t) > 4) && !__TYPE_IS_L(t) && \ - !__TYPE_IS_UL(t) && !__TYPE_IS_PTR(t)); \ + !__TYPE_IS_UL(t) && !__TYPE_IS_PTR(t) && \ + !__TYPE_IS_LOFFT(t)); \I think it's wrong, as loff_t is 64-bit in 32-bit userspace, and this will clear meaningful data in top halve.
Yes. It is my fault. The original thoughts is clear the up 32bit for size_t. How should we skip the loff_t? Regards Bamvor