linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf bench: Add support for 32-bit systems with 64-bit time

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

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0LsxOTYeM-o=Ee=XFD6zN7ESV_dhGmAOFSj_zJ8pBDgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:26:16 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alistair Francis <alistair23@...il.com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf bench: Add support for 32-bit systems with
 64-bit time_t

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 1:06 AM André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com> wrote:
> Às 05:08 de 21/09/21, Arnd Bergmann escreveu:
> > I would love to see the wrapper that Alistair wrote as part of some kernel
> > uapi header provided to user space. futex is used by tons of applications,
> > and we never had a library abstraction for it, so everyone has to do these
> > by hand, and they all get them slightly wrong in different ways.
>
> Why we don't have a futex() wrapper at glibc as we do have for others
> syscalls?

I think mainly because there was no agreement on what the calling
conventions should be:

The raw syscall is awkward because of the argument overloading that cannot
easily be expressed in standard C in a typesafe way. Having a per-operation
interface would avoid that problem but requires specifying what that
particular interface has to be, and there is no standard to fall back on for
this syscall.

       Arnd