Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:52:55 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, vapier@gentoo.org,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, x32@buildd.debian.org,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?
Message-ID: <20181211115254.GC35824@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
References: <CALCETrXoRAibsbWa9nfbDrt0iEuebMnCMhSFg-d9W-J2g8mDjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMe9rOp0m5sn59AsD2F2i2Ad2tb7ufPU1mMg-vUOfh+TnGMeaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrU5xw61=me1YcTO3VPzjNEZahMPpi-20-oiSGs+CHcj4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0adxnXr9JLfpR5MBeEJXSCK2Rt4w7NFLUUwO6s6LBVPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181211113230.GB35824@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
 <87efaoxpix.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87efaoxpix.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:37:42PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Catalin Marinas:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:35 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> > I tried to understand what's going on.  As far as I can tell, most of
> >> > the magic is the fact that __kernel_long_t and __kernel_ulong_t are
> >> > 64-bit as seen by x32 user code.  This means that a decent number of
> >> > uapi structures are the same on x32 and x86_64.  Syscalls that only
> >> > use structures like this should route to the x86_64 entry points.  But
> >> > the implementation is still highly dubious -- in_compat_syscall() will
> >> > be *true* in such system calls,
> >> 
> >> I think the fundamental issue was that the intention had always been
> >> to use only the 64-bit entry points for system calls, but the most
> >> complex one we have -- ioctl() -- has to use the compat entry point
> >> because device drivers define their own data structures using 'long'
> >> and pointer members and they need translation, as well as
> >> matching in_compat_syscall() checks. This in turn breaks down
> >> again whenever a driver defines an ioctl command that takes
> >> a __kernel_long_t or a derived type like timespec as its argument.
> >
> > With arm64 ILP32 we tried to avoid the ioctl() problem by having
> > __kernel_long_t 32-bit, IOW mimicking the arm32 ABI (compat). The
> > biggest pain point is signals where the state is completely different
> > from arm32 (more, wider registers) and can't be dealt with by the compat
> > layer.
> 
> I would expect to approach this from the opposite direction: use 64-bit
> types in places where the 64-bit kernel interface uses 64-bit types.
> After all, not everyone who is interested in ILP32 has a companion
> 32-bit architecture which could serve as a model for the application
> ABI.

I fully agree with you that if someone wants ILP32 for a 64-bit only
architecture, they should use the 64-bit kernel interface and ensure
POSIX is adjusted.

In the arm64 context, both options were discussed with the libc
community complaining that a partial 64-bit syscall ABI breaks POSIX
while the potential users were just asking for a 32-bit ABI to run their
existing software stack on ARMv8 machines without native 32-bit support
(until they complete the migration to 64-bit).

> (If there are conflicts with POSIX, then POSIX needs to be fixed to
> support this.)

This would have been nice but no-one volunteered and, more importantly,
there was no conclusive argument that ARM ILP32 is better than LP64
(well, apart from a minority of benchmarks) and something that people
would want to migrate to. Given that the only credible case made was
about legacy code, we decided to go ahead with a (mostly) compat 32-bit
ABI.

-- 
Catalin