Re: [PATCH v3] Add support for "info auxv" on NetBSD

[Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com>]

On 27.03.2020 17:31, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 3/26/20 4:26 PM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> Ping?
>>
>> On 20.03.2020 18:27, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> Register nbsd_auxv_parse() that overloads the default (Linux-style)
>>> AUXV parsing. On NetBSD the type parameter is defined as int32_t
>>> for all architectures.
>
> I would tone down some of the rhetoric.  FreeBSD uses the default AUXV
> parsing, and I think Solaris does as well, so describing it as Linux-only
> isn't very accurate.
>

It is phrases as Linux-style, not Linux-only.

Linux-style is considered as the default one and other OSs have to tune it.

> (Similarly, I think the earlier reviews I saw around ptrace() claimed that
> NetBSD was the only OS to use LWPs with ptrace() in the log messages in
> effect which isn't really true as both Solaris and FreeBSD use LWPs
> happily with ptrace(), just using a different convention.)
>

The pair of (PID+LWP) for getters and setters of registers (among
certain other ptrace operations) is NetBSD style ptrace(2) API design.
This leads to the point that NetBSD is currently the only OS where
get_ptrace_pid() is not compatible (at leat in the current form).

>>>  }
>>> +
>>> +/* NetBSD-specific parser for AUXV data with. NetBSD follows the ELF
>>> +   specification, contrary to some other ELF Operating Systems.  */
>
> I would also tone this down a bit, and at least reference the correct
> specification.  The ELF spec doesn't define the layout of auxv_t.  The
> per-architecture psABI documents do.  Also, just saying that you follow
> the spec doesn't help.  I would suggest something like:
>
> /* NetBSD-specific parser for AUXV entries.  NetBSD always uses an int
>    to store the type as defined in the SVR4 psABI specifications rather
>    than long as assumed by the default parser.  */
>

This is toned down compared to obsd-tdet.c, that says:

/* Unlike Linux, OpenBSD actually follows the ELF standard.  */

OK, is this patch fine after rephrasing the above texts?