On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Add a generic implementation of the ipc demultiplexer syscall. Except for
> > s390 and sparc64 all implementations of the sys_ipc are nearly identical.
>
> I think the s390 version is trivial to add as well, like
>
> SYSCALL_DEFINE5(s390_ipc, uint, call, int, first, unsigned long, second,
> unsigned long, third, void __user *, ptr)
> {
> if (call == SEMTIMEDOP)
> return sys_semtimedop(first, (struct sembuf __user *)ptr,
> (unsigned) second,
> (const struct timespec __user *)third);
>
> return sys_ipc(call & 0xffff, first, second, third, ptr, 0);
> }
Possiblly. Not sure if it's worth it, though. If the s390 maintainers
want it I'd say do it as a separate patch.
> But while going over the code again, I noticed that you broke sign extension
> at least on powerpc and s390, possibly on all 64 bit machines:
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + if (get_user(fourth.__pad, (void __user * __user *) ptr))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + return sys_semctl(first, second, third, fourth);
>
> return sys_semctl(first, (int)second, third, fourth);
What does the explicit case buy us in terms of sign-extension over
the implicit one given that the second argument to sys_semctl already is
types as int?
> This is needed to make sure the upper half of the register is filled with
> zero-extended or sign-extended correctly and does not contain random garbage
> in the native 64 bit case. IIRC, x86_64 does not have this problem and mips64
> may have the wrong code already. Alpha, parisc and ia64 don't have a native
> sys_ipc and the rest are 32 bit, so they don't care.
I can fix it up, but I don't quite understand the need.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
