On 2025-03-18 10:01, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 03:21:45PM -0400, Michael Jeanson wrote:
Adding the aligned(1024) attribute to the definition of __rseq_abi did
not increase its size to 1024, for this attribute to impact the size of
__rseq_abi it would need to be added to the declaration of 'struct
rseq_abi'. We only want to increase the size of the TLS allocation to
ensure registration will succeed with future extended ABI. Use a union
with a dummy member to ensure we allocate 1024 bytes.
This is in today's -next and breaks the build of the KVM selftests:
In file included from rseq_test.c:24:
/home/broonie/git/bisect/usr/include/linux/rseq.h:62:1: error: use of 'rseq' with tag type that does not match previous declaration
62 | struct rseq {
| ^
./../rseq/rseq.c:78:7: note: previous use is here
78 | union rseq {
| ^
In file included from rseq_test.c:24:
/home/broonie/git/bisect/usr/include/linux/rseq.h:62:8: error: redefinition of 'rseq'
62 | struct rseq {
| ^
./../rseq/rseq.c:78:7: note: previous definition is here
78 | union rseq {
| ^
since unlike the rseq tests the KVM rseq test includes the UAPI header
for rseq which the padded union conflicts with.
Oh, I missed that, we need a more unique name for the union.
I'm unfamiliar with the workflow of linux-next, should I send a V2 of
the current patch, or a new one that applies on top?
Thanks,
Michael
