lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:23 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all-
>
> I'm seriously considering sending a patch to remove x32 support from
> upstream Linux. Here are some problems with it:
>
> 1. It's not entirely clear that it has users. As far as I know, it's
> supported on Gentoo and Debian, and the Debian popcon graph for x32
> has been falling off dramatically. I don't think that any enterprise
> distro has ever supported x32.

I have been posting x32 GCC results for years:

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-12/msg01358.html

> 2. The way that system calls work is very strange. Most syscalls on
> x32 enter through their *native* (i.e. not COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE)
> entry point, and this is intentional. For example, adjtimex() uses
> the native entry, not the compat entry, because x32's struct timex
> matches the x86_64 layout. But a handful of syscalls have separate

This becomes less an issue with 64-bit time_t.

> entry points -- these are the syscalls starting at 512. These enter
> throuh the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE entry points.
>
> The x32 syscalls that are *not* in the 512 range violate all semblance
> of kernel syscall convention. In the syscall handlers,
> in_compat_syscall() returns true, but the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE entry
> is not invoked. This is nutty and risks breaking things when people
> refactor their syscall implementations. And no one tests these
> things. Similarly, if someone calls any of the syscalls below 512 but
> sets bit 31 in RAX, then the native entry will be called with
> in_compat_set().
>
> Conversely, if you call a syscall in the 512 range with bit 31
> *clear*, then the compat entry is set with in_compat_syscall()
> *clear*. This is also nutty.

This is to share syscalls between LP64 and ILP32 (x32) in x86-64 kernel.

> Finally, the kernel has a weird distinction between CONFIG_X86_X32_ABI
> and and CONFIG_X86_X32, which I suspect results in incorrect builds if
> the host doesn't have an x32 toolchain installed.

X86-64 binutils and GCC can be used to build x86-64 kernel with x32 support.

> I propose that we make CONFIG_X86_X32 depend on BROKEN for a release
> or two and then remove all the code if no one complains. If anyone
> wants to re-add it, IMO they're welcome to do so, but they need to do
> it in a way that is maintainable.


--
H.J.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-11 04:15    [W:0.214 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site