On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, at 03:36, Joe Damato wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 04:23:58PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 04:11:28PM -0800, Joe Damato wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:21:46PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:56:59PM +0000, Joe Damato wrote:
>> > > > +struct epoll_params {
>> > > > + u64 busy_poll_usecs;
>> > > > + u16 busy_poll_budget;
>> > > > +
>> > > > + /* for future fields */
>> > > > + u8 data[118];
>> > > > +} EPOLL_PACKED;
>> > >
>
> Sure, that makes sense to me. I'll remove it in the v4 alongside the other
> changes you've requested.
>
> Thanks for your time and patience reviewing my code. I greatly appreciate
> your helpful comments and feedback.
Note that you should still pad the structure to its normal
alignment. On non-x86 targets this would currently mean a
multiple of 64 bits.
I would suggest dropping the EPOLL_PACKED here entirely and
just using a fully aligned structure on all architectures, like
struct epoll_params {
__aligned_u64 busy_poll_usecs;
__u16 busy_poll_budget;
__u8 __pad[6];
};
The explicit padding can help avoid leaking stack data when
a structure is copied back from kernel to userspace, so I would
just always use it in ioctl data structures.
Arnd
