Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 20/25] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it | From | "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <> | Date | Thu, 12 May 2016 20:52:46 +0800 |
| |
Hi,
On 2016/5/12 16:24, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:45:53AM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote: > > [...] > >>> Hmm, that is indeed tricky. I think COMPAT_SYSCALL_WRAP4 rightfully >>> refuses the loff_t argument here, as the common case is that this is >>> not possible. >> It works if I apply the following patch, I defined the wrong `__TYPE_IS_xxx` >> yesterday. Should we merge this into ILP32 series or send the compat.h >> and syscalls.h individually? The current series of ILP32 is a little bit >> long and hard to review. >> diff --git a/include/linux/compat.h b/include/linux/compat.h >> index ba6ebe0..22a9565 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/compat.h >> +++ b/include/linux/compat.h >> @@ -747,7 +747,8 @@ asmlinkage long compat_sys_fanotify_mark(int, unsigned int, __u32, __u32, >> #ifndef __SC_COMPAT_CAST >> #define __SC_COMPAT_CAST(t, a) ({ \ >> BUILD_BUG_ON((sizeof(t) > 4) && !__TYPE_IS_L(t) && \ >> - !__TYPE_IS_UL(t) && !__TYPE_IS_PTR(t)); \ >> + !__TYPE_IS_UL(t) && !__TYPE_IS_PTR(t) && \ >> + !__TYPE_IS_LOFFT(t)); \ > > I think it's wrong, as loff_t is 64-bit in 32-bit userspace, and this > will clear meaningful data in top halve. Yes. It is my fault. The original thoughts is clear the up 32bit for size_t. How should we skip the loff_t?
Regards
Bamvor
| |