On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 18:09, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 01:09PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> As a part of a fix for the ABI of the newly added SIGTRAP TRAP_PERF a > >> si_trapno was reduced to an ordinary extention of the _sigfault case > >> of struct siginfo. > >> > >> When Linus saw the complete set of changes come in as a fix he requested > >> that the set of changes be trimmed down to just what was necessary to > >> fix the SIGTRAP TRAP_PERF ABI. > >> > >> I had intended to get the rest of the changes into the merge window for > >> v5.14 but I dropped the ball. > >> > >> I have made the changes to stop using __ARCH_SI_TRAPNO be per > >> architecture so they are easier to review. In doing so I found one > >> place on alpha where I used send_sig_fault instead of > >> send_sig_fault_trapno(... si_trapno = 0). That would not have changed > >> the userspace behavior but it did make the kernel code less clear. > >> > >> My rule in these patches is everywhere that siginfo layout calls > >> for SIL_FAULT_TRAPNO the code uses either force_sig_fault_trapno > >> or send_sig_fault_trapno. > >> > >> And of course I have rebased and compile tested Marco's compile time > >> assert patches. > >> > >> Eric > >> > >> > >> Eric W. Biederman (3): > >> signal/sparc: si_trapno is only used with SIGILL ILL_ILLTRP > >> signal/alpha: si_trapno is only used with SIGFPE and SIGTRAP TRAP_UNK > >> signal: Remove the generic __ARCH_SI_TRAPNO support > >> > >> Marco Elver (3): > >> sparc64: Add compile-time asserts for siginfo_t offsets > >> arm: Add compile-time asserts for siginfo_t offsets > >> arm64: Add compile-time asserts for siginfo_t offsets > > > > Nice, thanks for the respin. If I diffed it right, I see this is almost > > (modulo what you mentioned above) equivalent to: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/m1tuni8ano.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > + what's already in mainline. It's only missing: > > > > signal: Verify the alignment and size of siginfo_t > > signal: Rename SIL_PERF_EVENT SIL_FAULT_PERF_EVENT for consistency > > > > Would this be appropriate for this series, or rather separately, or > > dropped completely? > > Appropriate I just overlooked them. Full series with the 2 patches just sent looks good to me. Thanks, -- Marco
