On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:30:52 AM CEST Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 8:03:57 AM CEST Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > > > > Cost wise, this seems like it all cancels out in the end, but what > > > > > > > do I know? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you know something, and I also think Heiko and other s390 guys > > > > > > know something as well. So I'd like to listen their arguments here. > > > > > > If it comes to 64 bit arguments for compat system calls: s390 also has an > > > x32-like ABI extension which allows user space to use full 64 bit > > > registers. As far as I know hardly anybody ever made use of that. > > > > > > However even if that would be widely used, to me it wouldn't make sense to > > > add new compat system calls which allow 64 bit arguments, simply because > > > something like > > > > > > c = (u32)a | (u64)b << 32; > > > > > > can be done with a single 1-cycle instruction. It's just not worth the > > > extra effort to maintain additional system call variants. > > > > For reference, both tile and mips also have separate 32-bit ABIs that are > > only used on 64-bit kernels (aside from the normal 32-bit ABI). Tile > > does it like s390 and passes 64-bit arguments as pairs, while MIPS > > and x86 and pass them as single registers. > > AFAIK, x32 also requires that the upper half of a 64-bit reg is zeroed > by the user when a 32-bit value is passed. We could require the same on > AArch64/ILP32 but I'm a bit uneasy on trusting a multitude of C > libraries on this. It's not about trusting a C library, it's about ensuring malicious code cannot pass argumentst that the kernel code assumes will never happen. Arnd -- 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
