From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        pinskia@gmail.com, Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com, schwab@suse.de,
        broonie@kernel.org, Nathan_Lynch@mentor.com, agraf@suse.de,
        klimov.linux@gmail.com,
        Andrew Pinski <Andrew.Pinski@caviumnetworks.com>,
        jan.dakinevich@gmail.com, Andrew Pinski <apinski@cavium.com>,
        ddaney.cavm@gmail.com, bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com,
        philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com, joseph@codesourcery.com,
        christoph.muellner@theobroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 12/20] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:10:26 +0100
Message-ID: <2105480.kqDuemge8n@wuerfel>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-10-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20151217182753.GF25232@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1450215766-14765-1-git-send-email-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> <1450215766-14765-13-git-send-email-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> <20151217182753.GF25232@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2369
Lines: 51

On Thursday 17 December 2015 18:27:53 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:42:38AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:

> > +#define compat_sys_lookup_dcookie      sys_lookup_dcookie
> > +#define compat_sys_pread64             sys_pread64
> > +#define compat_sys_pwrite64            sys_pwrite64
> > +#define compat_sys_readahead           sys_readahead
> > +#define compat_sys_shmat               sys_shmat
> 
> I wonder whether we need wrappers (actually, not only for these but
> sys_read etc.). These functions take either a pointer or a size_t
> argument which are 32-bit with ILP32 but treated as 64-bit by an LP64
> kernel. Can we guarantee that user space zeros the top 32-bit of the
> arguments passed here?

I'm pretty sure that is safe. I haven't read the calling conventions
specification for arm64 ilp32, but usually all function arguments are
passed as 64-bit registers with proper sign-extend or zero-extend.

Most other syscalls rely on this behavior too, not just the ones that
are being modified here.

> With compat/AArch32, this is guaranteed by the kernel since EL0 won't be
> able to touch the top part but here I'm not entirely sure. As long as
> user space used Wn registers for 32-bit types, we are probably fine (the
> architecture guarantees the top 32-bit zeroing following a MOV, LDR etc.
> instruction into a Wn register). We just need to mention this in the ABI
> document (ilp32.txt).

I think the aarch32 case is actually the hard one, because it has to
worry about explicitly sign-extending 32-bit arguments (signed int or
signed long) that might be negative, e.g. user space passes -1 
as 0xffffffff, which the kernel entry turns into 0x00000000ffffffff
when it should use 0xffffffffffffffff. The COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINEx
macros take care of this.

> > +
> > +#define compat_sys_open_by_handle_at   sys_open_by_handle_at
> > +#define compat_sys_openat              sys_openat
> 
> So using sys_openat() forces O_LARGEFILE and we don't have a problem
> with (f)truncate. We may have an issue with AArch32 compat though.

aarch32 uses the correct compat functions in asm/unistd32.h

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/