On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:46:41 +0200
Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 08:54:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/kernel/unwind/user.c b/kernel/unwind/user.c
index 4fc550356b33..29e1f497a26e 100644
--- a/kernel/unwind/user.c
+++ b/kernel/unwind/user.c

@@ -12,12 +12,32 @@ static struct unwind_user_frame fp_frame = {
 	ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME
 };
 
+static struct unwind_user_frame compat_fp_frame = {
+	ARCH_INIT_USER_COMPAT_FP_FRAME
+};
+
 static inline bool fp_state(struct unwind_user_state *state)
 {
 	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP) &&
 	       state->type == UNWIND_USER_TYPE_FP;
 }
 
+static inline bool compat_state(struct unwind_user_state *state)  

Consistency would mandate this thing be called: compat_fp_state().

Sure. Will update it.

quoted

+{
+	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_COMPAT_FP) &&
+	       state->type == UNWIND_USER_TYPE_COMPAT_FP;
+}
+
+#define UNWIND_GET_USER_LONG(to, from, state)				\  

Do we have to shout this?

Don't we usually shout macros?

-- Steve

quoted

+({									\
+	int __ret;							\
+	if (compat_state(state))					\
+		__ret = get_user(to, (u32 __user *)(from));		\
+	else								\
+		__ret = get_user(to, (unsigned long __user *)(from));	\
+	__ret;								\
+})
+
 int unwind_user_next(struct unwind_user_state *state)
 {
 	struct unwind_user_frame *frame;