[PATCH 07/24] ARM64:ILP32: Use the same size and layout of the signal structures for ILP32 as for LP64.
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: 2014-06-17 15:58:36
Also in:
lkml
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:02:02AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h index 5a74a08..1a6aa32 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ /* * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Ltd. + * Copyright (C) 2014 Cavium Inc. * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as@@ -18,6 +19,26 @@ #define __ARCH_SI_PREAMBLE_SIZE (4 * sizeof(int)) +#ifdef __ILP32__
Does the compiler define __ILP32__ or it just undefined __LP64__. Anyway, maybe we should have some consistency and only use one in all places.
+# ifdef __AARCH64EB__ +# define __SIGINFO_INNER(type, field) \ + int __pad#field; \ + type field +# else +# define __SIGINFO_INNER(type, field) \ + type field; \ + int __pad#field +# endif + +# undef __SIGINFO_VOIDPOINTER +# define __SIGINFO_VOIDPOINTER(field) \ + __SIGINFO_INNER(void __user*, field) +# undef __SIGINFO_BAND + +# define __SIGINFO_BAND(field) \ + __SIGINFO_INNER(long, field) +#endif + #include <asm-generic/siginfo.h> #endif
Do the above give us the correct alignment for the _sifields union in siginfo? Or we get it as a side-effect of some other structure member forcing 64-bit alignment?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/signal.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/signal.h index 8d1e723..d90d53b 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/signal.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/signal.h@@ -19,6 +19,38 @@ /* Required for AArch32 compatibility. */ #define SA_RESTORER 0x04000000 +/* For ILP32, sigset should be the same size fields as LP64 so use + unsigned long long. */ +#ifdef __ILP32__ +#define __SIGSET_INNER_TYPE __extension__ unsigned long long +#define _NSIG_BPW 64 + +# ifdef __AARCH64EB__ +# define __SIGNAL_INNER(type, field) \ + __extension__ struct { \ + int __pad_##field; \ + type field; \ + } __attribute__((aligned(8))) +# else +# define __SIGNAL_INNER(type, field) \ + __extension__ struct { \ + type field; \ + int __pad_##field; \ + } __attribute__((aligned(8))) +# endif + +# define __SIGACTION_HANDLER(field) \ + __SIGNAL_INNER(__sighandler_t, field) + + +#define __SIGACTION_FLAGS(field) \ + __extension__ unsigned long long field + +#define __SIGACTION_RESTORER(field) \ + __SIGNAL_INNER(__sigrestore_t, field) + +#endif + #include <asm-generic/signal.h> #endif
I haven't seen any UAPI header using __extension__. Is this allowed? I assume we should be allowed to use the exported kernel headers with non-gcc compilers. -- Catalin