Split kern_break from sys_break and use it in linuxulator
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by emaste on Jun 26 2018, 6:17 PM.

Details

Reviewers

kib
brooks

Commits

rS335702: Split kern_break from sys_break and use it in linuxulator

Summary

Previously the linuxulator's linux_brk invoked the FreeBSD sys_break syscall implementation directly. Instead, move the bulk of the existing implementation to kern_break, and use that from both sys_break and linux_brk.

This also addresses a minor bug in linux_brk in that we now return the actual (rounded up) break address, rather than the requested value.

Diff Detail

Lint

Lint Skipped

Unit

Tests Skipped

Event Timeline

emaste created this revision.Jun 26 2018, 6:17 PM

Looks good to me. I wonder if we also want to restore ibcs2's int return value?

brooks accepted this revision.Jun 26 2018, 10:46 PM

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jun 26 2018, 10:46 PM

kib added inline comments.Jun 27 2018, 7:16 AM

sys/compat/linux/linux_misc.c
241–244	BTW, type of td_retval is register_t, not long.
242	Remove excess ().
sys/vm/vm_unix.c
76	Excess (). And the cast too.
87	Mismatched types: prototype uses uintptr_t *addr.

Review feedback from @kib

This revision now requires review to proceed.Jun 27 2018, 12:42 PM

emaste added inline comments.Jun 27 2018, 12:43 PM

sys/vm/vm_unix.c
76	What about the cast?

I wonder if we also want to restore ibcs2's int return value?

Would that be implementing a ibcs2-specific wrapper? I suspect it's not worth it.

emaste added inline comments.Jun 27 2018, 2:10 PM

sys/vm/vm_unix.c
76	typo, corrected locally to `uap->nsize`

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.Jun 27 2018, 2:45 PM

Closed by commit rS335702: Split kern_break from sys_break and use it in linuxulator (authored by emaste). · Explain Why

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

Herald added a subscriber: imp. · View Herald TranscriptJun 27 2018, 2:45 PM

In D16019#339574, @emaste wrote:

I wonder if we also want to restore ibcs2's int return value?

Would that be implementing a ibcs2-specific wrapper? I suspect it's not worth it.

I agree it probably isn't worth it.