On December 1, 2018 5:35:45 AM GMT+13:00, Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:41 AM Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

siginfo_t as it is now still has a number of other downsides, and

Andy in

quoted

particular didn't like the idea of having three new variants on x86
(depending on how you count). His alternative suggestion of having
a single syscall entry point that takes a 'signfo_t __user *' but

interprets

quoted

it as compat_siginfo depending on

in_compat_syscall()/in_x32_syscall()

quoted

should work correctly, but feels wrong to me, or at least

inconsistent

quoted

with how we do this elsewhere.

If everyone else is okay with it, I can get on board with three
variants on x86.  What I can't get on board with is *five* variants on

Thanks Andy, that helps a lot.
I'm okay with it. Does this require any additional changes to how the syscall
is currently hooked up?

x86, which would be:

procfd_signal via int80 / the 32-bit vDSO: the ia32 structure

syscall64 with nr == 335 (presumably): 64-bit

syscall64 with nr == 548 | 0x40000000: x32

syscall64 with nr == 548: 64-bit entry but in_compat_syscall() ==
true, behavior is arbitrary

syscall64 with nr == 335 | 0x40000000: x32 entry, but
in_compat_syscall() == false, behavior is arbitrary

This mess isn't really Christian's fault -- it's been there for a
while, but it's awful and I don't think we want to perpetuate it.

Obviously, I'd prefer a variant where the structure that's passed in
is always the same.

BTW, do we consider siginfo_t to be extensible?  If so, and if we pass

I would prefer if we could consider it extensible.
If so I would prefer if we could pass in a size argument.

in a pointer, presumably we should pass a length as well.