Movatterモバイル変換

This is the mail archive of thelibc-alpha@sourceware.orgmailing list for theglibc project.

Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix ipc_perm definition for ILP32

• From: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>
• To: Yury Norov <ynorov at caviumnetworks dot com>
• Cc: nd at arm dot com, sellcey at cavium dot com, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
• Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:02:19 +0100
• Subject: Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix ipc_perm definition for ILP32
• Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
• Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Szabolcs dot Nagy at arm dot com;
• Nodisclaimer: True
• References: <1503423981.28672.31.camel@cavium.com> <599D50F6.6060009@arm.com> <20170823101023.uvc2ehejstemzxyz@yury-thinkpad> <599D5AEC.7090402@arm.com>
• Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
• Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99

On 23/08/17 11:37, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:> we have to decide if mode_t is unsigned int or short on ilp32,> changing just the ipc_perm struct in libc is nonconforming:>http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/sys_ipc.h.html> > (there are some existing conformance issues like that in> glibc/linux but we should try to avoid introducing new ones)> > i think the ilp32 linux uapi should typedef __kernel_mode_t> to unsigned short, but i don't know the effect of that on> the kernel, so please discuss this with the kernel folks.> hm it seems to me that a mode_t change would bevery intrusive..can we keep the ipc_perm mode field unsigned intand do endian fixup/zero pad in the syscall interface?

• References:
  • [PATCH] aarch64: Fix ipc_perm definition for ILP32
    • From: Steve Ellcey
  • Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix ipc_perm definition for ILP32
    • From: Szabolcs Nagy
  • Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix ipc_perm definition for ILP32
    • From: Yury Norov
  • Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix ipc_perm definition for ILP32
    • From: Szabolcs Nagy