[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0DqQcApv8aa2dgBS5At=tEkN7cnaskoUeXDi2-Bu9Rnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:34:52 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...il.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
Yanteng Si <siyanteng@...ngson.cn>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Xuerui Wang <kernel@...0n.name>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 13/24] LoongArch: Add system call support
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 12:05 PM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 5:45 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:05 AM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch adds system call support and related uaccess.h for LoongArch.
> > >
> > > Q: Why keep __ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT definition while there is statx:
> > > A: Until the latest glibc release (2.34), statx is only used for 32-bit
> > > platforms, or 64-bit platforms with 32-bit timestamp. I.e., Most 64-
> > > bit platforms still use newstat now.
> > >
> > > Q: Why keep _ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE definition while there is clone3:
> > > A: The latest glibc release (2.34) has some basic support for clone3 but
> > > it isn't complete. E.g., pthread_create() and spawni() have converted
> > > to use clone3 but fork() will still use clone. Moreover, some seccomp
> > > related applications can still not work perfectly with clone3. E.g.,
> > > Chromium sandbox cannot work at all and there is no solution for it,
> > > which is more terrible than the fork() story [1].
> > >
> > > [1] https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2936184
> >
> > I still think these have to be removed. There is no mainline glibc or musl
> > port yet, and neither of them should actually be required. Please remove
> > them here, and modify your libc patches accordingly when you send those
> > upstream.
>
> If this is just a problem that can be resolved by upgrading
> glibc/musl, I will remove them. But the Chromium problem (or sandbox
> problem in general) seems to have no solution now.
I added Christian Brauner to Cc now, maybe he has come across the
sandbox problem before and has an idea for a solution.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists