This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH-for-2.21-and-2.22] s390-64: remove socketcall syscalls

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
To: aurelien at aurel32 dot net
Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Stefan Liebler <stli at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 23:05:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH-for-2.21-and-2.22] s390-64: remove socketcall syscalls
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <1451010098-22120-1-git-send-email-aurelien at aurel32 dot net> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1512311816490 dot 15940 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20151231211353 dot GH360 at aurel32 dot net> <20151231222845 dot GA12196 at aurel32 dot net>

On 31 Dec 2015 23:28, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I have found some times to investigate. It seems there is no issue, my
> bad. I just discovered that on s390x, syscalls numbers above 256 are
> actually a a call to syscall 0 with the syscall number passed in
> register %r1. My version of strace was not aware of the new syscalls 
> and presented them as syscall setup(). Sorry for the false alert.

is this a bug in strace ?  does it not handle `svc 0` insns correctly ?
if so, we should fix that.  i assumed the kernel would put the correct
NR into the r1 register regardless of how the syscall was invoked, but
maybe i'm being naive.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH-for-2.21-and-2.22] s390-64: remove socketcall syscalls
  - From: Dmitry V. Levin

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]