qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Qemu-devel] [Bug 1689367] Re: In qemu chroot, repeating "qemu: Unsuppor


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [Bug 1689367] Re: In qemu chroot, repeating "qemu: Unsupported syscall: 384" messages. sys_getrandom ?
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 16:54:42 -0000

arm32 syscall 384 is indeed getrandom, but QEMU implemented this in
commit f894efd19917321 as of Feb 2016, which should be in 2.6 or later.
I've just checked and the LTP test cases for getrandom all pass with
qemu-arm-user and do invoke the getrandom syscall and don't provoke the
warning from QEMU.

Can you check that the qemu-arm-static binary inside the chroot is
really 2.9 and not an older version?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of qemu-
devel-ml, which is subscribed to QEMU.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1689367

Title:
  In qemu chroot, repeating "qemu: Unsupported syscall: 384" messages.
  sys_getrandom ?

Status in QEMU:
  New

Bug description:
  On exec of an armv7 qemu chroot on my local x86_64 desktop, launched
  via

          /usr/sbin/qemu-binfmt-conf.sh

  from

          qemu-linux-user-2.9.0-374.1.x86_64

  on the host, inside the chroot any compile activity is laced with
  repetitions of

          qemu: Unsupported syscall: 384

  messages.

  This wasn't always the case -- but, TBH, it's been ~ 6 months since I
  used this env, and there have been scads of usual pkg updates in the
  interim.  These messages appear to be non-fatal, with no particular
  effect at all; at least not so far ...

  From a chat in #IRC,

        [10:05] davidgiluk clever/pgnd: I see it as getrandom
        [10:05] davidgiluk pgnd: 
https://fedora.juszkiewicz.com.pl/syscalls.html   sort it on the ARM table and 
you can easily see it
        [10:05] clever arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl:384  common  getrandom        
       sys_getrandom
        [10:06] davidgiluk pgnd: my *guess* is that something is calling 
getrandom, getting told it's not implemented and then falling back to using 
/dev/urandom
        [10:10] pgnd davidgiluk: If that *is* the case, is it to be considered 
a problem, or just informational?
        [10:12] davidgiluk pgnd: As long as it's falling back probably 
informational; but someone should probably go and wire up sys_getrandom at some 
point

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1689367/+subscriptions



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]