On Wed, 22 May 2019 14:10:39 +0200 Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> wrote:
> On 22/05/2019 14:07, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 22 May 2019 13:47:25 +0200 > > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On 5/21/19 5:28 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> commit a188339ca5a396acc588e5851ed7e19f66b0ebd9 > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> > >>> --- > >> [...] > >>> #define __NR_mq_notify 184 > >>> __SC_COMP(__NR_mq_notify, sys_mq_notify, compat_sys_mq_notify) > >>> #define __NR_mq_getsetattr 185 > >>> @@ -536,8 +567,10 @@ __SC_COMP(__NR_msgsnd, sys_msgsnd, compat_sys_msgsnd) > >>> __SYSCALL(__NR_semget, sys_semget) > >>> #define __NR_semctl 191 > >>> __SC_COMP(__NR_semctl, sys_semctl, compat_sys_semctl) > >>> +#if defined(__ARCH_WANT_TIME32_SYSCALLS) || __BITS_PER_LONG != 32 > > > > Eww. It seems only aarch64 sets __ARCH_WANT_TIME32_SYSCALLS, and the > > second condition probably catches others but not mipsel. > > > >>> #define __NR_semtimedop 192 > >>> -__SC_COMP(__NR_semtimedop, sys_semtimedop, compat_sys_semtimedop) > >>> +__SC_COMP(__NR_semtimedop, sys_semtimedop, sys_semtimedop_time32) > >>> +#endif > >>> #define __NR_semop 193 > >>> __SYSCALL(__NR_semop, sys_semop) > >> [...] > >> > >> https://app.shippable.com/github/qemu/qemu/runs/1703/summary/console > >> > >> It seems this commit introduce a regression on mips32: > >> > >> CC mipsel-linux-user/linux-user/syscall.o > >> ./linux-user/syscall.c: In function 'safe_semtimedop': > >> ./linux-user/syscall.c:697:25: error: '__NR_semtimedop' undeclared > >> (first use in this function) > >> return safe_syscall(__NR_##name, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4); \ > > > > So, we unconditionally deal with this syscall, i.e. we assume it is > > always present? (I'm not sure of the logic in linux-user code.) > > > > linux-user assumes it is present if __NR_msgsnd is present. Hm. The kernel change seems to break that assumption. Does anyone with mips knowledge have an idea whether that was intentional (and the linux-user code needs to be changed), or whether that's an issue on the kernel side?
