On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:11:33PM -0700, Kevin Cernekee wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > Why would lazy binding ever be used for __syscall_error? Shouldn't
> > this be bound at link time via appropriate visibility or otherwise? I
> > can't think of any reason you'd
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> Why would lazy binding ever be used for __syscall_error? Shouldn't
> this be bound at link time via appropriate visibility or otherwise? I
> can't think of any reason you'd want it to be possible to override
> it...
Within libc.so itself, I be
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 03:05:20PM -0700, Kevin Cernekee wrote:
> $a0 is saved across _dl_runtime_resolve(); $v0 is not. Unfortunately,
> __syscall_error() uses $v0 for its argument, not $a0 as is the MIPS ABI
> standard. This means that if lazy binding was used for __syscall_error(),
> the errno
$a0 is saved across _dl_runtime_resolve(); $v0 is not. Unfortunately,
__syscall_error() uses $v0 for its argument, not $a0 as is the MIPS ABI
standard. This means that if lazy binding was used for __syscall_error(),
the errno value in $v0 could get corrupted.
The problem can be easily seen in te
