Re: [RFC v1 01/16] sysdeps/nanosleep: Use clock_nanosleep_time64 instead of nanosleep

[Alistair Francis <alistair23 at gmail dot com>]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:05 PM Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:52 AM Adhemerval Zanella
> <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23/06/2019 20:42, Alistair Francis wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:35 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:00 PM Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 9:48 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>>> * Alistair Francis:
> > >>>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 11:34 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * Alistair Francis:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> +2019-06-21  Alistair Francis  <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
> > >>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>> +     * nptl/thrd_sleep.c: Use clock_nanosleep_time64 instead of nanosleep.
> > >>>>>>> +     * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/nanosleep.c: Likewise.
> > >>>>>>> +     * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/nanosleep_nocancel.c: Likewise.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sorry, how is this supposed to work for all the other architectures
> > >>>>>> which don't have this system call with current kernel versions?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Good question, I'm sure it doesn't.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If we put this around #if defined(clock_nanosleep_time64) or #ifndef
> > >>>>> clock_nanosleep and then keep the current code as the #else would that
> > >>>>> be acceptable to upstream?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Does this work in <sysdep.h> for the port?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> #define __NR_clock_nanosleep  __NR_clock_nanosleep_time64
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm at home today so I can't check, but I suspect that will work.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This is somewhat hackish, but it's reasonably accurate for architectures
> > >>>> that provide standard system calls under non-standard names for some
> > >>>> reason.
> > >>>
> > >>> For the RV32 case I think this will provide a workable solution. I am
> > >>> under the impression though that all 32-bit architectures are
> > >>> eventually removing __ARCH_WANT_TIME32_SYSCALLS from Linux so they
> > >>> will also hit this issue. Which is why I was going for a more generic
> > >>> approach. In saying that, whatever gets the RV32 port in works for me
> > >>> :)
> > >>
> > >> Generally speaking we never remove system calls from the kernel, rv32
> > >> was the exception to this rule because there was no upstream C library
> > >> port. __ARCH_WANT_TIME32_SYSCALLS will probably hang around for
> > >> shortly before year 2038 -- afterwards there is no point any more as all
> > >> binaries relying on it will be broken then.
> > >>
> > >> We will however allow building kernels that omit the time32 syscalls
> > >> before then, as they are only adding baggage to the kernel size and
> > >> make it harder to verify that user space doesn't try calling them.
> > >>
> > >> I think for internal libc functions, you need to try both functions:
> > >> first the time64 version for kernels that leave out the 32-bit one,
> > >> and then the time32 version for running on pre-5.1 kernels.
> > >
> > > Ok, so if I re-jig the series to #ifdef the 64-bit syscall first and
> > > then fall back to the standard (32-bit) syscall that will be the
> > > correct solution?
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> For user-visible glibc interfaces (e.g. nanosleep()), user space with
> > >> a 64-bit time_t will have to try the time64 syscall first and then fall
> > >> back on the time32 version for pre-5.1 kernels, while user space
> > >> with 32-bit time_t should only call the old time32 syscall and fail
> > >> on any kernel that doesn't support that, either because
> > >> __ARCH_WANT_TIME32_SYSCALLS is not set at compile
> > >> time, or because the kernel was configured without these.
> > >
> > > Ok, so this seems to just be changing the #ifdef logic to something like this:
> > >
> > > #ifdef time_t == 64
> > > # ifdef __NR_syscall64
> > >     __NR_syscall64()
> > > # else
> > >     __NR_syscall()
> > > # endif
> > > #else /* time_t == 64*/
> > >     __NR_syscall()
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > Although that just simplifies to:
> > >
> > > # ifdef __NR_syscall64
> > >     __NR_syscall64()
> > > # else
> > >     __NR_syscall()
> > > # endif
> > >
> >
> > Kernel seems to allow builds with disabled time32 syscalls and if it were indeed
> > used on deployments we will need to do change the glibc implementation to do:
> >
> > --
> > #ifdef __NR_syscall64
> >   long int ret = __NR_syscall64 ();
> >   if (ret == 0 || errno != ENOSYS)
> >     return ret;
> > #endif
> >   return __NR_syscall ();
> > --
> >
> > We can optimize by adding __ASSUME macros on kernel-features to explicit make
> > syscall64 is always used, which will turn to previous logic to:
> >
> > --
> > #ifdef __ASSUME_syscall64
> >   return __NR_syscall64 ();
> > #else
> > # ifdef __NR_syscall64
> >   long int ret = __NR_syscall64 ();
> >   if (ret == 0 || errno != ENOSYS)
> >     return ret;
> > # endif
> >   return __NR_syscall ();
> > #endif
>
> Neither of these work as in this case __NR_syscall() isn't defiend. We
> can't include it at all for glibc to compile.

Nevermind, I think I figured it out. I'll send a v2.

Alistair

>
> Alistair
>
> > --