Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 01:48, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Well with 7 patches instead of 3 that was a little more than I thought >> I was going to send. >> >> However that does demonstrate what I am thinking, and I think most of >> the changes are reasonable at this point. >> >> I am very curious how synchronous this all is, because if this code >> is truly synchronous updating signalfd to handle this class of signal >> doesn't really make sense. >> >> If the code is not synchronous using force_sig is questionable. >> >> Eric W. Biederman (7): >> siginfo: Move si_trapno inside the union inside _si_fault >> signal: Implement SIL_FAULT_TRAPNO >> signal: Use dedicated helpers to send signals with si_trapno set >> signal: Remove __ARCH_SI_TRAPNO >> signal: Rename SIL_PERF_EVENT SIL_FAULT_PERF_EVENT for consistency >> signal: Factor force_sig_perf out of perf_sigtrap >> signal: Deliver all of the perf_data in si_perf > > Thank you for doing this so quickly -- it looks much cleaner. I'll > have a more detailed look next week and also run some tests myself. > > At a first glance, you've broken our tests in > tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/ -- needs a > s/si_perf/si_perf.data/, s/si_errno/si_perf.type/ Yeah. I figured I did, but I couldn't figure out where the tests were and I didn't have a lot of time. I just wanted to get this out so we can do as much as reasonable before the ABI starts being actively used by userspace and we can't change it. Eric
