linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 29/30] microblaze_mmu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:51:29 +0200
From:	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.williams@...alogix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 29/30] microblaze_mmu_v1: stat.h MMU update

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 30 April 2009, Michal Simek wrote:
> 
>> 2. header cleanup -> some of them is pain because I have to recompile toolchain
>> that's should be a big deal but after recompilation kernel, user apps I am getting some problems.
> 
> Yes, I understand that you have a circular dependency there, but fixing
> the ABI can only become harder with time, as more people start using
> the current kernel/toolchain combination.

Here is the one advantage that in mainline are only some drivers for Microblaze
and the rest is in petalinux. And people can use whole distribution.

> 
>> 3. syscall cleanup -> we still have old libc and I can't simple remove ancient syscalls
> 
> I had hoped that the way I set __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_* in the microblaze
> unistd.h would provide an easy way to migrate, because this still defines
> almost all traditional system calls (I haven't double-checked if some more
> are currently used on microblaze, but they would be easy to add).
> This means that as a first step, rebuilding the tool chain (as above) should
> be sufficient and not require source-level changes to libc. From that point,
> you can remove the remaining __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_* defintions one by one,
> and change the libc accordingly.
> 
> I could also try building uclibc with the generic headers if I find the
> time. Which version do you use, just upstream or do you have a private
> libc tree with more changes?

That's good question but harder answer.
Glibc is any ancient 3-4 years non mainline version. There are some backports too.
I have some comments to it but it is better not to write them.

uclibc version is a little bit better. I had functional port half year mainline version
+ some private fixes. Currently John W is working on it to get working version with gcc 4.1.2.
He has some troubles with it but I hope he solve it soon.

We have troubles because none have taken care about. I hope that we are able to update
all the things and repair everything what wrong it.

Michal

> 
> 	Arnd <><


-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/