[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc04219fc3414bbb968adb844052ecb7@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:16:16 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Mathieu Desnoyers' <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-kselftest <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 02/15] rseq: Remove broken uapi field layout on 32-bit
little endian
From: Mathieu Desnoyers
> Sent: 25 January 2022 19:01
>
> ----- On Jan 25, 2022, at 9:41 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com wrote:
>
> > ----- On Jan 25, 2022, at 7:21 AM, Christian Brauner brauner@...nel.org wrote:
> [...]
> >>> include/uapi/linux/rseq.h | 17 ++++-------------
> [...]
> >>> union {
> >>
> >> A bit unfortunate we seem to have to keep the union around even though
> >> it's just one field now.
> >
> > Well, as far as the user-space projects that I know of which use rseq
> > are concerned (glibc, librseq, tcmalloc), those end up with their own
> > copy of the uapi header anyway to deal with the big/little endian field
> > on 32-bit. So I'm very much open to remove the union if we accept that
> > this uapi header is really just meant to express the ABI and is not
> > expected to be used as an API by user-space.
> >
> > That would mean we also bring a uapi header copy into the kernel
> > rseq selftests as well to minimize the gap between librseq and
> > the kernel sefltests (the kernel sefltests pretty much include a
> > copy of librseq for convenience. librseq is maintained out of tree).
> >
> > Thoughts ?
>
> Actually, if we go ahead and remove the union, and replace:
>
> struct rseq {
> union {
> __u64 ptr64;
> } rseq_cs;
> [...]
> } v;
>
> by:
>
> struct rseq {
> __u64 rseq_cs;
> } v;
>
> expressions such as these are unchanged:
>
> - sizeof(v.rseq_cs),
> - &v.rseq_cs,
> - __alignof__(v.rseq_cs),
> - offsetof(struct rseq, rseq_cs).
>
> So users of the uapi rseq.h (as an API) can still use rseq_abi->rseq_cs before
> and after the change.
But:
v.rseq_cs.ptr_64 = (uintptr_t)&foo;
is broken.
> Based on this, I am inclined to remove the union, and just make the rseq_cs field
> a __u64.
It really is a shame that you can't do:
void *rseq_cs __attribute__((size(8)));
and have the compiler just DTRT on 32bit systems.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists