From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXpIV-00032E-7D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:55:59 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXpIT-000320-Dc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:55:58 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXpIT-00031x-8s
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:55:57 -0500
Received: from grayson.netsweng.com ([207.235.77.11])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anderson@netsweng.com>) id 1HXpFa-0002z4-Sb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:52:59 -0400
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:52:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stuart Anderson <anderson@netsweng.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] clone syscall fix
In-Reply-To: <20070331192104.GC24690@networkno.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703312147020.5290@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703292140020.514@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com>
	<20070331192104.GC24690@networkno.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Thiemo Seufer wrote:

> Stuart Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Even though clone() and fork() are related, they don't seem to be close
>> enough to allow a single routine to be used to implement both. With this
>> patch, the LTP tests for clone now pass.
>
> But it still does the same, assuming VM_CLONE is set, except for passing
> additional arguments to the host call.

I'm not so sure that the VM_CLONE flag should control wether the new
stack is set up or not. There are tests for newsp == NULL inside that
block anyway. The LTP certainly tests combination for which the
do_fork() code doesn't work.


> Passing untranslated regs looks
> like a bug to me, I'm unsure about the tls_val.

Hmm, could be, but that's the way it is in the current code. I think
more testing on additional combination sof target &host will be needed.

>> It may be possible to fold this back into do_fork(), but this just seemed to
>> be a little bit more straightforward.
>
> Since Linux's fork() is just a specialcase of clone() this should be
> done eventually.

I'll try just dropping do_fork completely, and see if this new do_clone()
works for the fork case also. If so, then that effectively folds the
changes back into do_fork(), and more closely resembles that non-emulated
case of fork() being implemnted on top of clone( anyway.


                                 Stuart

Stuart R. Anderson                               anderson@netsweng.com
Network & Software Engineering                   http://www.netsweng.com/
1024D/37A79149:                                  0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F
                                                  BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149