Marco Elver [off-list ref] writes:

On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 01:48, Eric W. Biederman [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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