From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
"ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] (Resend) 2038 Kernel Summit Discussion Fodder
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:18:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140813091837.GA18495@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVP64FSJWyHHbm0R-2qTzN1Q5PwXh4k9+qjg1Q8bSud2w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:37:11AM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:33 PM, <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 05:08:53PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >> A more aggressive version of the previous proposal is what I’m calling the
> >> “New Virtual-Architecture” approach, basically extending the versioning
> >> control from the linker down into the kernel as well. It would be adding a
> >> new “virtual-architecture” to the kernel, not entirely unlike how x32 is
> >> supported on x86_64 systems. We would create entirely new ABI and
> >> architecture name in the kernel (think something like “armllt” or
> >> “i386llt”). We would preserve compatibility for legacy applications via
> >> personalities, similar mechanism as the compat_ interface used to support
> >> 32bit applications on 64bit kernels. In this case, we wouldn’t introduce
> >> new 64 bit syscalls in the kernel, as the existing interfaces would just be
> >> typed correctly for our new virtual architecture, but we would have
> >> duplicate syscall interfaces via the compat interfaces. The extra
> >> complexity would also be that we would have to support new 32bit compat
> >> environment on 64bit systems. Userspace would be completely rebuilt to
> >> support the new -llt architecture, and compatibility for legacy
> >> applications would be done via the same multiarch packaging as is done now
> >> for running 32bit applications on 64bit systems.
> >
> > I wonder: could we make this new architecture effectively use the
> > signatures of the 64-bit syscalls (similar to x32), just with a 32-bit
> > calling convention?
>
> Doesn't x32 do the reverse? It invokes *compat* syscalls using a
> 64-bit calling convention.
Not entirely. It uses 64-bit syscalls primarily with compat only when
sharing structures containing pointers. We are working on something
similar for arm64 (called the ILP32 ABI).
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-13 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-13 0:08 John Stultz
2014-08-13 1:33 ` josh
2014-08-13 1:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-08-13 9:18 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2014-08-13 3:45 ` John Stultz
2014-08-13 20:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-08-13 21:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-08-27 18:34 ` John Stultz
2014-08-23 22:26 ` Pavel Machek
2014-09-08 17:55 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-09-08 18:07 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140813091837.GA18495@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox