On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 1:13 PM Richard Henderson <
richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 6/20/22 10:42, Warner Losh wrote:
> > These implement both the old-pre INO64 mknod variations, as well as the
> > now current INO64 variant. To implement the old stuff, we use some
> > linker magic to bind to the old versions of these functions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stacey Son <s...@freebsd.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Meloun <m...@freebsd.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com>
> > ---
> > bsd-user/bsd-file.h | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > bsd-user/freebsd/os-syscall.c | 15 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/bsd-user/bsd-file.h b/bsd-user/bsd-file.h
> > index 0585f6a2a40..3be832b2a74 100644
> > --- a/bsd-user/bsd-file.h
> > +++ b/bsd-user/bsd-file.h
> > @@ -51,6 +51,16 @@ do { \
> > unlock_user(p1, arg1, 0); \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > +#ifndef BSD_HAVE_INO64
> > +#define freebsd11_mknod mknod
> > +#define freebsd11_mknodat mknodat
> > +#else
> > +int freebsd11_mknod(char *path, mode_t mode, uint32_t dev);
> > +__sym_compat(mknod, freebsd11_mknod, FBSD_1.0);
> > +int freebsd11_mknodat(int fd, char *path, mode_t mode, uint32_t dev);
> > +__sym_compat(mknodat, freebsd11_mknodat, FBSD_1.1);
> > +#endif
>
> Where does BSD_HAVE_INO64 come from? I can't find it defined in freebsd
> git.
>
It used to be defined conditionally on FreeBSD 12 vs earlier. Now it's
defined unconditionally
in a file that wasn't part of the upstreaming. I'll rework now that it's
unconditional because
there's no way we could run on a FreeBSD 11 system. Normally we'd just
retire these older
system calls to limit the scope of what we need to maintain, but we have to
have the old FreeBSD-11
era pre-INO64 system calls (here and elsewhere) to support rust since it
doesn't use libc at all.
> You should probably avoid the linker tricks and use direct syscalls of
> SYS_freebsd11_mknodat etc
>
Yea, on pre-ino64 systems, there were no system calls like that. Now that
we have them, I think
you are right that we'd be better off just using the system call directly
rather than needing this hack
to get the old system calls. the old symbols will be around forever, but
it's better to be more direct here.
There's nothing hidden in the libc versions of these symbols.
tl;dr: It's always defined now, so I'll unifdef it.
Warner
