Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your project. I will check out the root task in your project,
that is what I was looking for. This might be a silly question, does UX/RT
stand for *Unix Real Time*?

-Sid

On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 5:06 PM Stefan O'Rear <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 1, 2021, at 3:15 AM, Gerwin Klein wrote:
> > Not if you don't have any capabilities mapped into the address space.
> > Correct, which would be a reasonable design for a legacy subsystem, it
> > forces each syscall to raise an exception. Silly me for not pointing
> > this out in the first place.
> >
> > I think there are some syscalls that a linux application could issue
> > that would not trigger a fault:
> >
> > * The yield syscall takes no arguments
> > * It looks to me like the non-blocking send syscalls do not raise
> exceptions
> >
> > I can confirm that "yield" is the only syscall in seL4 that does not
> > need a cap[*]. That is probably something that should be changed.
>
> An idea I had a long time ago (and for different reasons) was that all
> system
> calls should fault if the _CSpace root_ for the current thread is null.
> This
> allows running "foreign system" threads without changing dataflow
> properties and
> without touching the fastpaths at all.
>
> However if I understand Andrew's use case correctly this does not help
> him; I
> believe he is asking to run single threads containing both
> microkernel-aware code
> and legacy code in the same thread, with seL4 recognizing syscalls from the
> address range containing microkernel-aware code, while syscalls from all
> other
> addresses fault.  This is similar to a recently proposed Linux emulation
> feature
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/11/18/815) and would require at least one
> additional
> load and test in the fastpaths.
>
> An alternative which would allow my understanding of Andrew's use case
> would be
> to consistently use the same syscall register as Linux with non-overlapping
> syscall numbers.  IIRC there is old seL4 or L4 documentation which implies
> this
> is already the case, although as detailed in several other replies it is
> not.
>
> -s
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to