[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230713061227.43222-1-falcon@tinylab.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 14:12:27 +0800
From: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>
To: thomas@...ch.de
Cc: arnd@...db.de, falcon@...ylab.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, w@....eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] tools/nolibc: add new crt.h with _start_c
Hi, Thomas
> On 2023-07-12 17:17:39+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > As the environ and _auxv support added for nolibc, the assembly _start
> > function becomes more and more complex and therefore makes the porting
> > of nolibc to new architectures harder and harder.
> >
> > To simplify portability, this C version of _start_c() is added to do
> > most of the assembly start operations in C, which reduces the complexity
> > a lot and will eventually simplify the porting of nolibc to the new
> > architectures.
> >
> > The new _start_c() only requires a stack pointer argument, it will find
> > argv, envp and _auxv for us, and then call main(), finally, it exit()
> > with main's return status. With this new _start_c(), the future new
> > architectures only require to add very few assembly instructions.
> >
> > As suggested by Thomas, users may use a different signature of main
> > (e.g. void main(void)), a _nolibc_main alias is added for main to
> > silence the warning about potential conflicting types.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/90fdd255-32f4-4caf-90ff-06456b53dac3@t-8ch.de/
> > Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>
> > ---
> > tools/include/nolibc/Makefile | 1 +
> > tools/include/nolibc/crt.h | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 tools/include/nolibc/crt.h
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/Makefile b/tools/include/nolibc/Makefile
> > index 64d67b080744..909b6eb500fe 100644
> > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/Makefile
> > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ nolibc_arch := $(patsubst arm64,aarch64,$(ARCH))
> > arch_file := arch-$(nolibc_arch).h
> > all_files := \
> > compiler.h \
> > + crt.h \
> > ctype.h \
> > errno.h \
> > nolibc.h \
> > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/crt.h b/tools/include/nolibc/crt.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..f9db2389acd2
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/crt.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1 OR MIT */
> > +/*
> > + * C Run Time support for NOLIBC
> > + * Copyright (C) 2023 Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#ifndef _NOLIBC_CRT_H
> > +#define _NOLIBC_CRT_H
> > +
> > +char **environ __attribute__((weak));
> > +const unsigned long *_auxv __attribute__((weak));
> > +
> > +typedef int (_nolibc_main_fn)(int, char **, char **);
>
> What's the advantage of the typedef over using the pointer type inline?
>
With the extra comment added, this is not required anymore, will remove
this typedef.
> > +static void exit(int);
> > +
> > +void _start_c(long *sp)
> > +{
> > + int argc, i;
> > + char **argv;
> > + char **envp;
> > + /* silence potential warning: conflicting types for 'main' */
> > + _nolibc_main_fn _nolibc_main __asm__ ("main");
>
> What about the stackprotector initialization?
> It would really fit great into this series.
>
Ok, which gcc version supports stackprotector? seems the test even skip
on gcc 10, I will find one to verify the code change.
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * sp : argc <-- argument count, required by main()
> > + * argv: argv[0] <-- argument vector, required by main()
> > + * argv[1]
> > + * ...
> > + * argv[argc-1]
> > + * null
> > + * envp: envp[0] <-- environment variables, required by main() and getenv()
> > + * envp[1]
> > + * ...
> > + * null
> > + * _auxv: auxv[0] <-- auxiliary vector, required by getauxval()
> > + * auxv[1]
> > + * ...
> > + * null
> > + */
> > +
> > + /* assign argc and argv */
> > + argc = sp[0];
> > + argv = (void *)(sp + 1);
>
> Bit of a weird mismatch between array syntax and pointer arithmetic.
>
This 'argc = *sp;' may be better ;-)
> > +
> > + /* find envp */
> > + envp = argv + argc + 1;
> > + environ = envp;
>
> Is envp really needed? Could just be assigned directly to environ.
>
Ok, let's save one variable, envp is used to be consistent with the
frequenty declaration of main().
> > +
> > + /* find auxv */
> > + i = 0;
> > + while (envp[i])
> > + i++;
> > + _auxv = (void *)(envp + i + 1);
>
> Could be simplified a bit:
>
> _auxv = (void *) envp;
> while (_auxv)
> _auxv++;
>
Yeah, it is better, but needs a little change.
_auxv = (void *) envp;
while (*_auxv)
_auxv++;
_auxv++;
Thanks,
Zhangjin
> > +
> > + /* go to application */
> > + exit(_nolibc_main(argc, argv, envp));
> > +}
> > +
> > +#endif /* _NOLIBC_CRT_H */
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists