From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
To: Charles Mirabile <cmirabil@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>,
"Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nolibc/stdlib: Improve `getauxval(3)` implementation
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:52:06 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZabQVvpZ4e7hTwcb@biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240116181147.2230944-1-cmirabil@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 01:11:47PM -0500, Charles Mirabile wrote:
> At least on x86-64, the ABI only specifies that one more long will be
> present with value 0 (type AT_NULL) after the pairs of auxv entries.
> Whether or not it has a corresponding value is unspecified. This value is
> present on linux, but there is no reason to check it as simply seeing an
> auxv entry whose type value is AT_NULL should be enough.
Yeah, I agree with that. I just read the ABI and confirmed that the
'a_un' member is ignored when the type is `AT_NULL`. Let's stop relying
on an unspecified value.
For others who want to check, see page 37 and 38:
https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/-/wikis/uploads/221b09355dd540efcbe61b783b6c0ece/x86-64-psABI-2023-09-26.pdf
> This is a matter of taste, but I think processing the data in a structured
> way by coercing it into an array of type value pairs, using multiple
> return style, and a for loop with a clear exit condition is more readable
> than the existing infinite loop with multiple exit points and a return
> value variable.
Ok. It's more readable using your way. One thing that bothers me a bit
is type of 'a_type'. On page 37, the ABI defines the auxv type-val pair
as:
typedef struct
{
int a_type;
union {
long a_val;
void *a_ptr;
void (*a_fnc)();
} a_un;
} auxv_t;
Assuming the arch is x86-64 Linux. Note that 'a_type' is an 'int' which
is 4 bytes in size, but we use 'unsigned long' instead of 'int' to
represent it. However, since 'a_un' needs to be 8 bytes aligned, the
compiler will put a 4 bytes padding between 'a_type' and 'a_un', so it
ends up just fine (on x86-64).
What do you think about other architectures? Will it potentially be
misinterpreted?
I tried to compare it in my head for i386, but it also ends up just
fine. I don't know other architectures.
> I also added a call to set errno to ENOENT when the entry is not found as
> glibc does which allows programs to disambiguate between the case of an
> auxv that is not present, and one that is, but with value zero.
Good catch!
--
Ammar Faizi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-16 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-16 18:11 [PATCH] nolibc/stdlib: Improve `getauxval(3)` implementation Charles Mirabile
2024-01-16 18:52 ` Ammar Faizi [this message]
2024-01-16 18:58 ` Willy Tarreau
2024-01-16 18:59 ` Willy Tarreau
2024-01-16 19:11 ` Ammar Faizi
2024-01-16 19:23 ` Ammar Faizi
2024-01-16 19:46 ` Willy Tarreau
2024-01-16 19:51 ` Ammar Faizi
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=ZabQVvpZ4e7hTwcb@biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org \
--to=ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org \
--cc=cmirabil@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/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