From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E50C169C4 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:22:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D991720863 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:22:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D991720863 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43z3JK69VYzDqLP for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:22:25 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=permerror (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org (client-ip=63.228.1.57; helo=gate.crashing.org; envelope-from=benh@kernel.crashing.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43z3Df1bQ5zDqRN for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:19:13 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x1C0Inhn000550; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:18:52 -0600 Message-ID: <5fa785bd8552e33e637a26a3d06c4ed8c3da4532.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Subject: Re: [QUESTION] powerpc, libseccomp, and spu From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Tom Hromatka , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:18:49 +1100 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.4 (3.30.4-1.fc29) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Paul Moore , Dhaval Giani Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, 2019-02-11 at 11:54 -0700, Tom Hromatka wrote: > PowerPC experts, > > Paul Moore and I are working on the v2.4 release of libseccomp, > and as part of this work I need to update the syscall table for > each architecture. > > I have incorporated the new ppc syscall.tbl into libseccomp, but > I am not familiar with the value of "spu" in the ABI column. For > example: > > 22 32 umount sys_oldumount > 22 64 umount sys_ni_syscall > 22 spu umount sys_ni_syscall > > In libseccomp, we maintain a 32-bit ppc syscall table and a 64-bit > ppc syscall table. Do we also need to add a "spu" ppc syscall > table? Some clarification on the syscalls marked "spu" and "nospu" > would be greatly appreciated. On the Cell processor, there is a number of little co-processors (SPUs) that run alongside the main PowerPC core. Userspace can run code on them, they operate within the user context via their own MMUs. We provide a facility for them to issue syscalls (via some kind of RPC to the main core). The "SPU" indication indicates syscalls that can be called from the SPUs via that mechanism. Now, the big question is, anybody still using Cell ? :-) Cheers, Ben.