From: Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com>
To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] linux: Use waitid on wait4 if __NR_wait4 is not defined
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:01:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKmqyKNOk_EPAo5Cr=2qUyVwEEGnRXRXwEm4oGVXUPd==NJ5mw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a0b3de47-8f1b-e737-02bf-a1adeeb8b2d2@linaro.org>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 4:15 AM Adhemerval Zanella
<adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21/11/2019 15:41, Alistair Francis wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM Adhemerval Zanella
> > <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 14/11/2019 11:47, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> >>> +pid_t
> >>> +__wait4 (pid_t pid, int *stat_loc, int options, struct rusage *usage)
> >>> +{
> >>> +#if __NR_wait4
> >>> + return SYSCALL_CANCEL (wait4, pid, stat_loc, options, usage);
> >>> +#elif defined (__ASSUME_WAITID_PID0_P_PGID)
> >> [...]
> >>> +# else
> >>> +/* Linux waitid prior kernel 5.4 does not support waiting for the current
> >>> + process. It would be possible to emulate it by calling getpgid for pid 0,
> >>> + however, it would require an additional syscall and it is inherent racy:
> >>> + after the current process group is received and before it is passed
> >>> + to waitid a signal could arrive causing the current process group to
> >>> + change. */
> >>> +# error "The kernel ABI does not provide a way to implement wait4"
> >>> +#endif
> >>
> >> So the only design here that I am not sure is if the best one is to trigger
> >> a build error to avoid an architecture to not define __NR_wait4 and also
> >> support kernels older than 5.4 (which would not define
> >> __ASSUME_WAITID_PID0_P_PGID), or if it should do as generic implementation
> >> and return ENOSYS along with a stub.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > I think a build error makes sense. Currently only RV32 doesn't have
> > __NR_wait4 (which isn't upstreamed) so you aren't breaking anything.
> >
> > The only kernels that could possibly not have __NR_wait4 and be less
> > then 5.4 are 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, non of which are stable so they will
> > slowly disappear anyway.
> >
> > Not producing a build error could be very confusing for developers
> > that do get bitten by the missing implementation.
> >
>
> My point if if checking for kernel version to define __ASSUME_WAITID_PID0_P_PGID
> does make, meaning it is possible with some config option in the kernel
> to enable only waitid for kernels older than 5.3; or if we can assume
> some configuration in always invalid and thus the kernel won't allow
> enable it.
>
> If the latter we can then remove the __ASSUME_WAITID_PID0_P_PGID and
> add a comment on waitid implementation stating that if waitid is the
> only syscall supported then it is suppose to be the superset of all
> wait* functionalities.
I think I understand what you are saying.
It is NOT the case that if waitid is the only syscall supported then
it is a superset of all wait* functions.
For RV32 the 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 only support waitid but do not support
the PID0 P_PGID functionality. In these three kernel cases the call
will fail.
Alistair
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-22 20:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-14 14:47 [PATCH 1/7] Remove __waitpid_nocancel Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-14 14:47 ` [PATCH 7/7] Consolidate wait3 implementations Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-14 15:44 ` Alistair Francis
2019-12-19 15:33 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-14 14:47 ` [PATCH 5/7] linux: Use waitid on wait4 if __NR_wait4 is not defined Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-15 18:27 ` Alistair Francis
2019-11-21 17:48 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-21 17:53 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-21 18:47 ` Alistair Francis
2019-11-22 12:15 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-22 20:01 ` Alistair Francis [this message]
2019-11-25 12:39 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-25 12:42 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-12-03 19:04 ` Alistair Francis
2019-12-03 19:18 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-14 14:47 ` [PATCH 3/7] nptl: Move waitpid implementation to libc Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-14 14:47 ` [PATCH 6/7] Implement waitpid in terms of wait4 Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-14 14:47 ` [PATCH 4/7] Implement wait in terms of waitpid Adhemerval Zanella
2019-11-14 14:47 ` [PATCH 2/7] nptl: Move wait implementation to libc Adhemerval Zanella
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='CAKmqyKNOk_EPAo5Cr=2qUyVwEEGnRXRXwEm4oGVXUPd==NJ5mw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=alistair23@gmail.com \
--cc=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).