André Almeida <andrealmeid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct futex_waitv - A waiter for vectorized wait
>>> + * @val: Expected value at uaddr
>>> + * @uaddr: User address to wait on
>>> + * @flags: Flags for this waiter
>>> + * @__reserved: Reserved member to preserve data alignment. Should be 0.
>>> + */
>>> +struct futex_waitv {
>>> + __u64 val;
>>> + __u64 uaddr;
>>> + __u32 flags;
>>> + __u32 __reserved;
>>> +};
>>
>> why force uaddr to be __u64, even for 32-bit? uaddr could be a (void*) for
>> all we care, no? Also, by adding a reserved field, you are wasting 32
>> bits even on 32-bit architectures.
>>
>
> We do that to make the structure layout compatible with both entry
> points, remove the need for special cast and duplicated code, as
> suggested by Thomas and Arnd:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87v94310gm.ffs@tglx/
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAK8P3a0MO1qJLRkCH8KrZ3+=L66KOsMRmcbrUvYdMoKykdKoyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
I find this weird. I'm not even juts talking about compat, but even on
native 32-bit. But also, 32 applications on 64, which is a big use
case for games.
The structure is mandating a 64 bit uaddr field and has an unnecessary
pad. You are wasting 20% of the space, which is gonna be elements of a
vector coming from user space. Worst case, you are doing copy_from_user
of an extra 1k bytes in the critical path of futex_waitv for no good
reason.
Also, if I understand correctly, Arnd suggestion, at least, was to have
two parser functions and a single syscall entry point, that would do the
translation:
if (in_compat_syscall())
futex_parse_waitv_compat(futexv, waiters, nr_futexes);
else
futex_parse_waitv(futexv, waiters, nr_futexes);
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
