Hi Catalin,
On 3/19/20 6:10 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Vincenzo,
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:38:42PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 3/18/20 6:36 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 04:14:26PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/20 5:48 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>> So clock_gettime() on arm32 always falls back to the syscall?
>>>>
>>>> This seems not what you asked, and I think I answered accordingly. Anyway, in
>>>> the case of arm32 the error code path is handled via syscall fallback.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the code below as an example (I am using getres because I know this
>>>> email will be already too long, and I do not want to add pointless code, but the
>>>> concept is the same for gettime and the others):
>>>>
>>>> static __maybe_unused
>>>> int __cvdso_clock_getres(clockid_t clock, struct __kernel_timespec *res)
>>>> {
>>>> int ret = __cvdso_clock_getres_common(clock, res);
>>>>
>>>> if (unlikely(ret))
>>>> return clock_getres_fallback(clock, res);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> When the return code of the "vdso" internal function returns an error the system
>>>> call is triggered.
>>>
>>> But when __cvdso_clock_getres_common() does *not* return an error, it
>>> means that it handled the clock_getres() call without a fallback to the
>>> syscall. I assume this is possible on arm32. When the clock_getres() is
>>> handled directly (not as a syscall), why doesn't arm32 need the same
>>> (res >= TASK_SIZE) check?
>>
>> Ok, I see what you mean.
>
> I'm not sure.
>
Thank you for the long chat this morning. As we agreed I am going to repost the
patches removing the checks discussed in this thread and we will address the
syscall ABI difference subsequently with a different series.
--
Regards,
Vincenzo
