[parisc-linux] Linux syscall ABI
Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:36:39 -0700 (MST)
> I don't think reserving 0xFXXX XXXX for I/O in userspace is a good idea.
> There is no problem with doing userspace I/O using the normal mmap /dev/mem
> approach. (Except maybe HPUX compatibility, which doesn't concern linux-
> only processes).
> kernel memcpy() shouldn't ever be called with either an IO or a user address
I was referring to user space memcpy, not kernel memcpy. The HP-UX user
space memcpy supports use with IO mapped addresses, however it has to
differentiate those addresses in order to not do optimizations that won't
work with IO mapped addresses. Having a dedicated range allows for an
easy test. But perhaps if this is not desirable we can just say that
Linux glibc memcpy is not supported for IO mapped addresses (assuming it
> > One disadvantage of this proposal is that we could not support the
> > System V personality null pointer dereference behaviour. This maps
> > a page of zero's at location 0 so that null pointer dereferences will
> > return 0 for buggy software. Do we really still need to maintain this
> > ancient hack?
> No, we don't. We're talking about PER_LINUX binaries here, and those
> never expected to be able to dereference NULL pointers.
I don't know much about PER_SVR4, and why it exists. Willy pointed it
out to me. I can see from the kernel source that perhaps it is only there
for sparc. If it is not necessary for parisc-linux to support then
there is no issue. If it is necessary then I guess I assumed that PER_SVR4
binaries would use the same gateway page as PER_LINUX binaries.
> Of course every page in the region 0xfffc0000 - 0x3f fffc (it's a 17-bit
> signed immediate shifted left 2 bits, so that should be -2^18 - 2^18-4)
> can be used, so we just need a page within the first 256 KB.
This is true for user space. For kernel space, I don't think we can
use anything in F space, unless we map the real IO addresses somewhere
else in virtual space. I'm not sure what assumptions are being made
right now regarding that mapping in the drivers.
I was also thinking that we may want to eventually map physical addresses
directly (with no offset) to virtual addresses, in order to support the
maximum amount of physical memory. But Perhaps we can have a 16 Mb offset
> a variety of reasons why it might not be available long term) the
> > sequence could be shortened to:
> > mtsp %r0,%sr0
> > ble <gateway offset>(%sr0,%r0)
> > ldi <syscall #>,%r20
> In fact, what's wrong with shortening _this_ sequence to
> ble <gateway offset)(%sr2, %r0)
> ldi <syscall #>,%r20
> and teaching userspace to not modify sr2 ?
I like this idea. The only disadvantage is that if the user modifies sr2
by mistake, all of a sudden all of the syscalls stop working (for that
process only). It might be hard to debug. But, as long as we make sure
that gcc never touches sr2, there should be almost no legitimate reason to
play with space registers in the user address space for Linux processes,
since we are going to have sr4=sr5=sr6=sr7. In fact, gcc should be
modified to stop using $$dyncall for indirect function pointer calls. So,
a C programmer will never run into this problem by mistake. Only people
doing assembly language programming could run into the error.
Now, I am assuming we would set sr2 to 0 and locate the gateway page in
the kernel address space if we chose this proposal. But this idea has the
flexibility of allowing us to move the gateway page into another space
completely if we ever need to (would require modifications to the tlb miss
handler). It also has the interesting feature that a programmer could set
sr2 to point into the user address space, and if we choose an offset for
the gateway page in the kernel address space and make that offset also
available for mmap in the user address space, the user could place there
own page at the gateway offset in user space and intercept all syscalls
(there are other ways of doing this, but I just thought it was