> From: Miod Vallat
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 06:06:22 + (UTC)
>
> > So I implemented a new function called
> > copyin_futex(9), which is all we really need.
>
> But it is not specific to futex - in fact, it could be used in syscall()
> as well.
>
>
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 10:05:28PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> I tried to convert a few more architectures, and things get a bit
> messier than I envisioned on architectures that have an optimized copy
> function and care about alignment. Especially when copyin(9) is
> implemented in assembly.
On 14/05/17(Sun) 22:05, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 13:34:38 +
> > From: Visa Hankala
> >
> > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:24PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > The futex(2) syscall needs to be able to atomically copy the futex in
> > > and out of
> So I implemented a new function called
> copyin_futex(9), which is all we really need.
But it is not specific to futex - in fact, it could be used in syscall()
as well.
Better call it fuword() or aligned_fuword() since it has the extra
alignment requirement that
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 13:34:38 +
> From: Visa Hankala
>
> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:24PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > The futex(2) syscall needs to be able to atomically copy the futex in
> > and out of userland. The current implementation uses copyin(9) and
> >
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:24PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> The futex(2) syscall needs to be able to atomically copy the futex in
> and out of userland. The current implementation uses copyin(9) and
> copyout(9) for that. The futex is a 32-bit integer, and currently our
> copyin(9) and
On 01/05/17(Mon) 18:02, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> The futex(2) syscall needs to be able to atomically copy the futex in
> and out of userland. The current implementation uses copyin(9) and
> copyout(9) for that. The futex is a 32-bit integer, and currently our
> copyin(9) and copyout(9) don't
> Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 15:52:56 +
> From: Visa Hankala
>
> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:24PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > The futex(2) syscall needs to be able to atomically copy the futex in
> > and out of userland. The current implementation uses copyin(9) and
> >
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:24PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> The futex(2) syscall needs to be able to atomically copy the futex in
> and out of userland. The current implementation uses copyin(9) and
> copyout(9) for that. The futex is a 32-bit integer, and currently our
> copyin(9) and
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> The futex(2) syscall needs to be able to atomically copy the futex in
> and out of userland. The current implementation uses copyin(9) and
> copyout(9) for that. The futex is a 32-bit integer, and currently our
> copyin(9) and copyout(9) don't guarantee an atomic 32-bit
The futex(2) syscall needs to be able to atomically copy the futex in
and out of userland. The current implementation uses copyin(9) and
copyout(9) for that. The futex is a 32-bit integer, and currently our
copyin(9) and copyout(9) don't guarantee an atomic 32-bit access.
Previously mpi@ and I
11 matches
Mail list logo