Ulrich Drepper wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The 6-word limit is a red herring. There is at least two ways to deal
with it (and this doesn't mean wiping the legacy stuff we already have):
- Let each architecture pick a calling convention and redefine the
architecture-independent bits to take an arbitrary number of arguments.
This is a one-time panarchitectural change.
[...]
Just think beyond wishful thinking for a moment. What does it take to
come up with something completely new and grand?
Let's start at the basic: you need to signal that the new syscall
calling convention is used. Since the syscall entry code is limited (at
least the likes of syscall/sysenter, it would be easy enough to use int
$0x81 in addition to int $0x80) you would have to extend the use of the
syscall number while keeping binary compatibility. This means
additional costs for every single syscall.
No.
I already said I'm not looking at changing the calling convention for
existing syscalls. I don't think that makes sense. (The only realistic
exception to that is that if we really want a small number (16 or less)
of flags fully orthogonal to the system call table, I guess it might
make sense to stuff those in the high bits of the system call register.
However, I am a bit concerned about the auditability of that.)
Once you're past that, how do you implement the expandable syscall
parameter count? There are two ways:
- - pass to the real sys_* implementations the number of provided syscall
parameters and have each function figure out what this means
- - dynamically construct a call to the sys_* functions where the syscall
magic adds an appropriate number of parameters filled with zeros. This
is quite complicated and, more importantly, it requires that you have
code/data somewhere which specifies how many parameters each of the
sys_* function actually requires. The actual sys_* code and the data
has to be kept in sync at all times. A maintenance nightmare.
Hardly so, as evidenced by the fact that we have successfully done so
for 15 years already; a number of Linux architectures require this
information for the existing system calls.
The handling of syscalls with many parameters should not at all be a
driver of this design at all. Syscalls shouldn't be that complicated, I
completely agree with ingo.
You *ARE* introducing additional syscall parameters, regardless if
you're admitting it or not. It's exactly what you're doing, and by
making those parameters hidden, all we're accomplishing is:
- a penalty any time those parameters have to be invoked,
- a good possibility that all the combinations are not audited.
I'm perfectly willing to give you the benefit of doubt, show us a design
for what you're proposing which is not slower than the current code,
doesn't impact existing code, and solves the problem in a nice and clean
way. I cannot really see it now but I might miss something. The
sys_indirect approach ain't pretty but it does it jobs, doesn't impact
performance, and is expandable in direction we *know* we will want to go
very soon.
We have a ton of examples in the kernel already for both dealing with
additional parameters and (somewhat fewer examples, but sys_pselect is a
good one) too many parameters: in all cases, we invoke a wrapper
function that sets up the parameters and then invokes the "true" syscall
function. Right now we're generating those manually, which appears to
work okay simply because the amount of work it takes is small compared
to the amount of work it takes to write the code for a proper syscall.
(That doesn't mean it is the ideal model, of course.) We *could*
generate them automatically if we wanted to, with either of the models I
mentioned -- the code I have in klibc to generate syscall stubs should
be relatively easily modifiable to do this, although it's probably
overkill for this job.
In this case we do minimal thunking of parameters for the legacy
entrypoints, and for the current entrypoints we do the guaranteed
minimum amount of work.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
