This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls
- From: Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital dot net>
- To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb dot de>
- Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert at linux-m68k dot org>, Heiko Carstens <heiko dot carstens at de dot ibm dot com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel dot org>, X86 ML <x86 at kernel dot org>, Network Development <netdev at vger dot kernel dot org>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Alexander Larsson <alexl at redhat dot com>, Cosimo Cecchi <cosimo at endlessm dot com>, Dan Nicholson <nicholson at endlessm dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan <raji at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Linux-Arch <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:32:46 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <cb5138299d37d5800e2d135b01a7667fa6115854 dot 1436912629 dot git dot luto at kernel dot org> <49726621 dot LPTnfQXYGz at wuerfel> <CAMuHMdXX31xZ4AS6FbeXLXgDn5UV5=0C3hrihuwDOP_abuJsBg at mail dot gmail dot com> <2108882 dot tTxglVCXxY at wuerfel>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Friday 11 September 2015 11:54:50 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> To make sure I don't miss any (it seems I missed recvmmsg and sendmmsg for
>> the socketcall case, sigh), this is the list of ipc syscalls to implement?
>>
>> sys_msgget
>> sys_msgctl
>> sys_msgrcv
>> sys_msgsnd
>> sys_semget
>> sys_semctl
>> sys_semtimedop
>> sys_shmget
>> sys_shmctl
>> sys_shmat
>> sys_shmdt
>>
>> sys_semop() seems to be unneeded because it can be implemented using
>> sys_semtimedop()?
>>
>
> Yes, that list looks right. IPC also includes a set of six sys_mq_*
> call, but I believe that everyone already has those as they are not
> covered by sys_ipc.
>
> For y2038 compatibility, we will likely add a new variant of
> semtimedop that takes a 64-bit timespec. While the argument passed
> there is a relative time that will never need to be longer than 68
> years, we need to accommodate user space that defines timespec
> in a sane way, and converting the argument in libc would be awkward.
>
I missed sys_ipc entirely.
Ingo, Thomas, want to just wire those up, too? I can send a patch
next week, but it'll be as trivial as the socket one.
--Andy