On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 09:06:04PM -0400, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> In addition to doing everything that clone() system call does, the
>> eclone() system call:
>
> Some comments...
>
>> +sys_eclone_wrapper:
>> + add ip, sp, #S_OFF
>> + str ip, [sp, #0]
>> + b sys_eclone
>> +ENDPROC(sys_eclone_wrapper)
>
> I'm curious why, if you want the entire set of registers, you don't just
> do:
> add r0, sp, #S_OFF
> b sys_eclone
>
> and load the syscall arguments out of regs->ARM_foo. This avoids the need
> for additional stores.
>
I simply copied the code from sys_clone. Do you prefer that I change
it in both places?
>> +
>> sys_sigreturn_wrapper:
>> add r0, sp, #S_OFF
>> b sys_sigreturn
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/sys_arm.c b/arch/arm/kernel/sys_arm.c
>> index ae4027b..fd8199d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/sys_arm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/sys_arm.c
>> @@ -183,6 +183,45 @@ asmlinkage int sys_clone(unsigned long clone_flags, unsigned long newsp,
>> return do_fork(clone_flags, newsp, regs, 0, parent_tidptr, child_tidptr);
>> }
>>
>> +asmlinkage int sys_eclone(unsigned flags_low, struct clone_args __user *uca,
>> + int args_size, pid_t __user *pids,
>> + struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> + int rc;
>> + struct clone_args kca;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int __user *parent_tidp;
>> + int __user *child_tidp;
>> + unsigned long __user stack;
>
> __user on an integer type doesn't make any sense; integer types do not
> have address spaces.
>
thanks, will follow Sukadev's changes...
>> + unsigned long stack_size;
>> +
>> + rc = fetch_clone_args_from_user(uca, args_size, &kca);
>> + if (rc)
>> + return rc;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * TODO: Convert 'clone-flags' to 64-bits on all architectures.
>> + * TODO: When ->clone_flags_high is non-zero, copy it in to the
>> + * higher word(s) of 'flags':
>> + *
>> + * flags = (kca.clone_flags_high << 32) | flags_low;
>> + */
>> + flags = flags_low;
>> + parent_tidp = (int *)(unsigned long)kca.parent_tid_ptr;
>> + child_tidp = (int *)(unsigned long)kca.child_tid_ptr;
>
> This will produce sparse errors. Is there a reason why 'clone_args'
> tid pointers aren't already pointers marked with __user ?
>
>> +
>> + stack_size = (unsigned long)kca.child_stack_size;
>
> Shouldn't this already be of integer type?
>
>> + if (stack_size)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> So the stack must have a zero size? Is this missing a '!' ?
>
>> +
>> + stack = (unsigned long)kca.child_stack;
>> + if (!stack)
>> + stack = regs->ARM_sp;
>> +
>> + return do_fork_with_pids(flags, stack, regs, stack_size, parent_tidp,
>> + child_tidp, kca.nr_pids, pids);
>
> Hmm, so let me get this syscall interface right. We have some arguments
> passed in registers and others via a (variable sized?) structure. It seems
> really weird to have, eg, a pointer to the pids and the number of pids
> passed in two separate ways.
>
> The grouping between what's passed in registers and via this clone_args
> structure seems to be random. Can it be sanitized?
>
Thanks for you feedback. I will let the people behind eclone deal with
the eclone specifics.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
