[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OABI/EABI compatability of fstatat64



On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 11:35:34PM +0100, Vincent Sanders wrote:
> OABI/EABI compatability issue with fstatat64 and mixed ABI
> kernels. Patch fixes this, seems to be important on debian arm with
> EABI capable kernels.

This patch is identical to mine:

	http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/03/msg00104.html

I guess this confirms the patch is correct ;)

> Will fix #472982

actually the bug is #462677 (against linux-2.6). #472982
is against coreutils and correctly set as being blocked by
the linux-2.6 bug.

> Signed-off-by: Vincent Sanders <vince@simtec.co.uk>
> 
> -- 
> Regards Vincent
> http://www.kyllikki.org/
> 
> --- linux-2.6.24/arch/arm/kernel/calls.S	2008-01-24 22:58:37.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-2.6.24-fstatat64/arch/arm/kernel/calls.S	2008-04-05 20:01:11.000000000 +0100
> @@ -336,7 +336,7 @@
>  		CALL(sys_mknodat)
>  /* 325 */	CALL(sys_fchownat)
>  		CALL(sys_futimesat)
> -		CALL(sys_fstatat64)
> +		CALL(ABI(sys_fstatat64, sys_oabi_fstatat64))
>  		CALL(sys_unlinkat)
>  		CALL(sys_renameat)
>  /* 330 */	CALL(sys_linkat)
> --- linux-2.6.24/arch/arm/kernel/sys_oabi-compat.c	2008-01-24 22:58:37.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-2.6.24-fstatat64/arch/arm/kernel/sys_oabi-compat.c	2008-04-05 21:24:56.000000000 +0100
> @@ -169,6 +169,28 @@
>  	return error;
>  }
>  
> +asmlinkage long sys_oabi_fstatat64(int dfd, char __user *filename,
> +			       struct oldabi_stat64 __user *statbuf, int flag)
> +{
> +	struct kstat stat;
> +	int error = -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if ((flag & ~AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) != 0)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	if (flag & AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW)
> +		error = vfs_lstat_fd(dfd, filename, &stat);
> +	else
> +		error = vfs_stat_fd(dfd, filename, &stat);
> +
> +	if (!error)
> +		error = cp_oldabi_stat64(&stat, statbuf);
> +
> +out:
> +	return error;
> +}
> +
> +
>  struct oabi_flock64 {
>  	short	l_type;
>  	short	l_whence;
> 
> 
> 
> 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: