From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 407A01F45E for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 12:40:17 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=PuX84 AREsqnHsPCPQcytxBdGtoTQuyqOhF/qukSbenFnVk3wpna7JIuwX8mVR7iKxG5+I EMemBxRdczs/tAWDbqaLgdZJBRrlQSKOKYyMm8SLGepBESB/v7xM7VsLJyyVxpvI 4hiwc0u+TTcxHi3g3oQUUvQeoI0TF5dwtdFTY0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=default; bh=+O/DlPpWnQV qJ2xwfB+lOC65rro=; b=IUQdoUoVGeaktfaXPCI9aV9K0gQpDcOLTrWWMKIdxWE e8foB0yjpF0U3KnmHbCvIfaFP19GvAb0v05gSGRmalc1lV+D9aaXkphag9PYrO1A AdR4Wic8GLc1JgEPvaadbDjUyDwPbWY58AQ+CVwJ8hTp2hf3muQTP40MolrnIdPU = Received: (qmail 81596 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2020 12:40:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 81583 invoked by uid 89); 12 Feb 2020 12:40:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: albireo.enyo.de From: Florian Weimer To: Adhemerval Zanella Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] sparc: Use Linux kABI for syscall return References: <20200210192038.23588-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <20200210192038.23588-3-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <878sl9pe78.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <10c5636d-6ea7-e95c-3a3c-67be298472fd@linaro.org> <874kvxnczu.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <87tv3wltbb.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <7b15c63a-8379-d549-1a31-83803a365c5e@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:38:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: <7b15c63a-8379-d549-1a31-83803a365c5e@linaro.org> (Adhemerval Zanella's message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:35:39 -0300") Message-ID: <87mu9onfoo.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain * Adhemerval Zanella: > This code seems to come from since initial git repository > (Linux-2.6.12-rc2). > > From a glibc standpoint, the error handling will be the same in fact, > since what indicates the syscall has failed is the carry condition code > value, not the syscall returned value ('o0' register). The kernel will not set the carry condition code for large errors due to the faulty check. I think before your changes, we would not treat these cases as errors because the carry condition is not set and we check the separate err value. After your changes, the carry condition code is still not set, but the return value looks like an error return value if unchanged, so we now treat these leaked error codes as errors. But I don't think this should block your changes.