[PATCH v2 0/2] Introduce asinfo tool

[Edgar Kaziakhmedov]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:53:23 +0300
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:47:23PM +0300, Edgar Kaziakhmedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:26:41 +0300
> > "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 08:33:57AM +0300, Edgar Kaziakhmedov
> > > wrote: [...]  
> > > > Actually, I am not quite sure about ARM architectures, am I
> > > > right there or not. (I mean ABI modes). Because, according to
> > > > the current syscallent.h file in arm dir, there is not support
> > > > for subcall in ARM EABI, is it correct? Because, in the kernel
> > > > there is place for these subcalls.    
> > > 
> > > That's simple.  If you have a look at the kernel, you'll see the
> > > following:
> > > 
> > > $ grep -Fw oabi arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl
> > > # <num>	<abi>	<name>
> > > [<entry  
> > > point>			[<oabi compat entry point>]] #
> > > point>	common
> > > point>	- for system calls shared between oabi and eabi (may
> > > point>	have compat)  
> > > #  oabi   - for oabi-only system calls (may have compat)
> > > # For each syscall number, "common" is mutually exclusive with
> > > oabi and eabi 13	oabi	time
> > > sys_time 22	oabi	umount
> > > sys_oldumount 25	oabi	stime
> > > sys_stime 27	oabi	alarm
> > > sys_alarm 30	oabi	utime
> > > sys_utime 76	oabi	getrlimit
> > > sys_old_getrlimit 82	oabi
> > > select			sys_old_select 89
> > > oabi	readdir			sys_old_readdir
> > > 90	oabi	mmap			sys_old_mmap
> > > 102	oabi	socketcall sys_socketcall
> > > sys_oabi_socketcall 113 oabi
> > > syscall			sys_syscall 117 oabi
> > > ipc			sys_ipc sys_oabi_ipc
> > > 
> > > In other words, socketcall and ipc are implemented for oabi only,
> > > on eabi they return ENOSYS.  
> > 
> > Yes, sure, however, am I right, that syscallent.h will be the same
> > in sense of first 398 syscalls for ARM OABI and for ARM EABI?
> > I'd say, that it'd be convinient to add #ifdef directive to
> > syscalls, that are purposed for just OABI mode, and in case of EABI
> > fill them as zero.  
> 
> Why do you think it would be more convenient if, say, ipc syscall
> called on arm eabi would be printed as "syscall_117" rather than
> "ipc"?
> 
> 

It would be convinient in sense of understanding of the syscallent.h
file, for example, in mips architecture you separated syscall files
into syscall-compat.h, syscall-o32h, syscall-o32-stub.h etc

When strace compiled on mips with N32 ABI mode, 
syscall-o32.h will be included with the following syscalls
[4000] = { MA,	0,		SEN(printargs), "o32:syscall"		}, /* start of Linux o32 */
instead of 
[4000] = { MA,	0,		SEN(syscall),			"syscall"		}, /* start of Linux o32 */
And in this sense, I think I'd make the same principle with the ARM
architecture.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20170728/a044e82c/attachment.bin>