惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

V
Visual Studio Blog
Recent Announcements
Recent Announcements
雷峰网
雷峰网
The GitHub Blog
The GitHub Blog
罗磊的独立博客
月光博客
月光博客
J
Java Code Geeks
A
About on SuperTechFans
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
D
Docker
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
F
Fortinet All Blogs
U
Unit 42
C
Check Point Blog
Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
博客园 - 叶小钗
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
Blog — PlanetScale
Blog — PlanetScale
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog

LWN.net comments

tcmalloc's weird hack [LWN.net] Fixed? [LWN.net] mpd [LWN.net] Userspace AX.25 [LWN.net] RIP [LWN.net] My two cents... [LWN.net] pipx [LWN.net] Tragedy [LWN.net] A young man destined for glory [LWN.net] And 'less' won't let you search [LWN.net] A great loss [LWN.net] Sad and shocking news [LWN.net] Easy migration from Clementine [LWN.net] Sad coincidence [LWN.net] GNOME is actually usable thanks to Seth et al [LWN.net] Sad news :( [LWN.net] armhf supports preempt_rt [LWN.net] MusicBrainz accurracy [LWN.net] On open source maintainership [LWN.net] Let's stop here [LWN.net] Not a new thing [LWN.net] uv is indeed great pgmoneta Some comments on this on a Postgres blog feed [LWN.net] uv [LWN.net] going to Debian [LWN.net] Upgrading 64-bit-capable systems to 64-bit kernels? [LWN.net] Free Software foundations Maintainers can wait for code review but not for publish review? A reasonably extreme point of view [LWN.net]
Why does x32 need kernel support? [LWN.net]
epa · 2026-06-02 · via LWN.net comments

Why does x32 need kernel support?

Posted Jun 1, 2026 16:33 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
Parent article: Reconsidering x32 — again

The performance benefits of x32 are mostly in user space, with lower memory usage for pointers and so better cache use. Why can't it call the normal 64-bit system calls? If a pointer has to be passed, make the most significant word zeroes. In other words the 32-bit address space is embedded at the bottom of the 64-bit space. It would be the C library that has to have special support, not the kernel.


to post comments

Why does x32 need kernel support?

Posted Jun 1, 2026 17:02 UTC (Mon) by jepler (subscriber, #105975) [Link]

Why does x32 need kernel support?

Posted Jun 1, 2026 17:14 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (2 responses)

If you look at the 2011 x32 article you'll see that Linus asked the same question. From that article: "There are legitimate reasons why some of the system calls cannot be shared between the x32 and 64-bit modes. Situations where user space passes structures containing pointers to the kernel (ioctl() and readv() being simple examples) will require special handling since those pointers will be 32-bit. Signal handling will always be special."

Why does x32 need kernel support?

Posted Jun 1, 2026 17:49 UTC (Mon) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (1 responses)

Why does x32 need kernel support?

Posted Jun 3, 2026 3:30 UTC (Wed) by jrtc27 (subscriber, #107748) [Link]

Eh, not really. Consider readv as specified by POSIX:

ssize_t readv(int fildes, const struct iovec *iov, int iovcnt);

where POSIX specifies that struct iovec has at least the following members:

void   *iov_base  Base address of a memory region for input or output.
size_t  iov_len   The size of the memory pointed to by iov_base.

That unambiguously states that typeof/sizeof/alignof(((struct iovec *)0)->iov_base/len) are that of void */size_t, not my_magic_64_but_32_ptr/my_magic_64_but_32_size_t. But yet they need to do something special. Now maybe you do some horrible thing where you pretend to C that they're the 32-bit types, but really under the hood they end up as the 64-bit ones, and pray people aren't doing things using those types (e.g. typedef typeof(((struct iovec *)0)->iov_base) my_void_ptr; my_void_ptr *p = malloc(sizeof(my_void_ptr)); *p = ... would presumably get very out-of-bounds-y very quickly, but by the letter of POSIX should be completely legal).

Maybe though in practice that's all ok, and you even go as far as making sure they're magic for the purposes of C++ overloading, templates, name mangling, etc., so you can't tell they're not the 32-bit ones. But then msgsnd and msgrcv (NB: *not* the more typical sendmsg and recvmsg) come along and make everyone even sadder. Take msgsnd for example (msgrcv is the same fundamental API); POSIX defines it like so:

int msgsnd(int msqid, const void *msgp, size_t msgsz, int msgflg);

where it has this to say:

The application shall ensure that the argument msgp points to a user-defined buffer that contains first a field of type long specifying the type of the message, and then a data portion that holds the data bytes of the message. The structure below is an example of what this user-defined buffer might look like:

struct mymsg {
    long   mtype;       /* Message type. */
    char   mtext[1];    /* Message text. */
}

There's no fudging with magic types in system headers you can do to get around this one. As a programmer POSIX says you are the one who has to write the type of the first field as long, in a structure passed to the kernel. So you really are stuck with having the kernel know to differentiate x32 from standard x86_64.

Also mmap and things like shmat need to return pointers in the first 4 GiB of the address space, but I suppose implicitly adding MAP_32BIT to every request for certain processes isn't as heavyweight as having separate types floating around.

As for why I know this? Because Linux got it wrong and used the 64-bit syscall msgsnd/msgrcv. It broke fakeroot on x32, I went down the rabbit hole, and submitted https://lore.kernel.org/all/20201012014837.14305-1-jrtc27@jrtc27.com/ to fix it. Seems that never got merged in the end though so it's still broken... just shows you how little x32 and/or those APIs are used.