Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:31:53 -0500 From: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: syscall() ABI questions Message-ID: <20011029143153.B14748@locore.ca> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.011029021637.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 02:16:37AM -0800 References: <XFMail.011029021637.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Apparently, On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 02:16:37AM -0800, John Baldwin said words to the effect of; > I've got some questions about td->td_retval[1] and our syscall ABI. On some > archs (ia64, alpha) we preinitialie this value to 0. On other archs (i386, > sparc64, ppc) we set it to the value of the register it will be set to so that > effectively this register's value is preserved across the syscall. My question > is do our syscall ABI's actually assume that for syscalls with only one return > value that register isn't written to? NetBSD recently changed their i386 > syscall code to preinitialize to 0 rather than %edx. Anyone have the history > on this? > > Speaking of i386, I have another question. For the fork, vfork, and rfork > syscalls, we have custom handlers that call the syscall normally and then > explicitly zero the return value if %edx is 1 (i.e., the child). However, in > vm_fork(), we already explicitly set the value in %eax to 0 for child > processes, so is this extra setting of that value in libc really needed? If > not, we can safely get rid of rfork.S, vfork.S, and fork.S in libc I think. The thing to watch for is that the system call wrappers don't follow the same conventions for call-safe registers. At least on i386 vfork stashes the return address in %ecx and expects it not to be clobbered by the kernel. I think all the warppers that do this use %ecx (not %edx) and its the same on sparc64, %o0 and %o1 are assumed to be clobbered but other otherwise non-call safe registers are assumed to be preserved. So it should be ok to always clobber retval[1] by setting it to zero. I think you're right about fork and rfork being able to use the MIASM code. rfork with RFMEM is special but it can';t be safely called from C anyway. The vfork wrapper needs to stay on x86 at least because both processes return to the same stack; if the retunr address is not saved in a register the child may clobber the parent's when it "rets" and pops the stack. > > -- > > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011029143153.B14748>