From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HTLUo-0002PD-Bs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:18:10 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HTLUm-0002On-AE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:18:09 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTLUm-0002Ok-46
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:18:08 -0500
Received: from phoenix.bawue.net ([193.7.176.60] helo=mail.bawue.net)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <ths@networkno.de>) id 1HTLTI-00039S-9o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:16:36 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:13:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] fcntl64 fix
Message-ID: <20070319171303.GE28895@networkno.de>
References: <20070309215335.GB5629@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070309215335.GB5629@localhost.localdomain>
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <k.shutemov@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> TARGET_F_*64 should be used instead of F_*64, because on 64-bit host
> systems F_GETLK == F_GETLK64(same for SETLK and SETLKW), so we cannot
> determinate if it's a long lock or not on a target 32-bit system.
> Patch in the attachment.
> 
> P.S. Please, review my privious patches, which I have added description
> recently. Or should I repost it?
> 

> diff -uNr qemu-0.9.0.cvs20070304.orig/linux-user/syscall.c qemu-0.9.0.cvs20070304/linux-user/syscall.c
> --- qemu-0.9.0.cvs20070304.orig/linux-user/syscall.c	2007-03-09 20:08:59 +0200
> +++ qemu-0.9.0.cvs20070304/linux-user/syscall.c	2007-03-09 20:09:54 +0200
> @@ -4063,7 +4063,7 @@
>  #endif
>  
>          switch(arg2) {
> -        case F_GETLK64:
> +        case TARGET_F_GETLK64:
>              ret = get_errno(fcntl(arg1, arg2, &fl));

This changes the bug from checking the wrong flag to (potentially)
passing down the wrong flag...

>  	    if (ret == 0) {
>  #ifdef TARGET_ARM
> @@ -4089,8 +4089,8 @@
>  	    }
>  	    break;
>  
> -        case F_SETLK64:
> -        case F_SETLKW64:
> +        case TARGET_F_SETLK64:
> +        case TARGET_F_SETLKW64:
>  #ifdef TARGET_ARM
>              if (((CPUARMState *)cpu_env)->eabi) {
>                  lock_user_struct(target_efl, arg3, 1);

Likewise here. We should always check TARGET_* flags and pass down the
corresponding host flag.


Thiemo