On 3/16/20 3:49 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 03:33:30PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> On 3/16/20 2:43 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote[...] [...] > >> To make it more explicit we could make COMPAT_VDSO on arm64 depend on >> ARM64_4K_PAGES. What do you think? > > No, I don't see why we should add this limitation. > Fine by me. >>>> Please find below the list of errors for clock_gettime (similar for the other): >>>> >>>> passing UINTPTR_MAX to clock_gettime (VDSO): terminated by unexpected signal 7 >>>> clock-gettime-monotonic/abi: 1 failures/inconsistencies encountered >>> >>> Ah, so it uses UINTPTR_MAX in the test. Fair enough but I don't think >>> the arm64 check is entirely useful. On arm32, the check was meant to >>> return -EFAULT for addresses beyond TASK_SIZE that may enter into the >>> kernel or module space. On arm64 compat, the kernel space is well above >>> the reach of the 32-bit code. >>> >>> If you want to preserve some compatibility for this specific test, what >>> about checking for wrapping around 0, I think it would make more sense. >>> Something like: >>> >>> if ((u32)ts > UINTPTR_MAX - sizeof(*ts) + 1) >> >> Ok, sounds good to me. But it is something that this patch series inherited, >> hence I would prefer to send a separate patch that introduces what you are >> proposing and removes TASK_SIZE_32 from the headers. How does it sound? > > I'd rather avoid moving TASK_SIZE_32 unnecessarily. Just add a > preparatory patch to your series for arm64 compat vdso and follow with > the rest without moving TASK_SIZE_32 around. > Ok, sounds good. I will test it and repost. -- Regards, Vincenzo
