On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 1:53 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 04:09:01PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > fine. Also I used u32 there for the two smaller arguments, but maybe
> > that's silly and we should go straight to u64?
>
> Judging by `struct clone_args`, it looks like I've got to use
> __aligned_u64 for every argument:
>
> struct clone_args {
> __aligned_u64 flags;
> __aligned_u64 pidfd;
> __aligned_u64 child_tid;
> __aligned_u64 parent_tid;
> __aligned_u64 exit_signal;
> __aligned_u64 stack;
> __aligned_u64 stack_size;
> __aligned_u64 tls;
> __aligned_u64 set_tid;
> __aligned_u64 set_tid_size;
> __aligned_u64 cgroup;
> };
> #define CLONE_ARGS_SIZE_VER0 64 /* sizeof first published struct */
> #define CLONE_ARGS_SIZE_VER1 80 /* sizeof second published struct */
> #define CLONE_ARGS_SIZE_VER2 88 /* sizeof third published struct */
>
> So okay, I'll do that, and will have an ARGS_SIZE_VER0 macro too.
This is now covered by v19 of this patchset:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240701135801.3698-1-Jason@xxxxxxxxx/
