Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp4919627imu; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 05:42:29 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WL0abz+XnkR5XcfHD4ArUCvCTvPjduJFtGGrky0HPE4AGTowT5zqxzZa1X5F7vaa1uKcvS X-Received: by 2002:a63:ee4c:: with SMTP id n12mr7661828pgk.21.1543671749865; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 05:42:29 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1543671749; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=nWrXaL7FPSh9Dj0aRAIaJH4UCo26saLITzjT4A/+X75j084gWKgMIsXSnPmxOIjQKN YT20Ey/vjEmWrUVda3hHZ0Zd+rBclRGCguOVo/b5rU1H/37QE50goB0MtregPvB2hj46 szIRNvrR/GeN7I2GrpvRRKQFEjBXORKmU5XmSQUq1O/aRD+ePO27o4pCT8JgQmuQ9b5F +43KV56Uu2Zbb3oNW8zHp6lgWGr76Unmb3SR4p//AbAjdrpZG58n1f6slynPgmEgx2L7 j7SzxoLFuJP6yvfL+HuitOzsUiV/zPMbjU0vPL1NTLeQk2X3S/GIc3soUOOJOlkPpgyC pfVw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:subject:mime-version:user-agent :message-id:in-reply-to:date:references:cc:to:from; bh=hSZOJ7oraNKSnv1Zro8ntR/IDfTZ64leBsDiQwpI/N4=; b=iTwvhRt7z5TUePzO65e2IKI3veNmXV0gL53AKMl36QW/0oS8ZNDhW431MR/ezv92n0 NE22CtZZOvoxhf/GHrQlfhTUkNjC1lKcBQi1pNDBktTTOXPviRQhcFAWlWULmFJB2iGC QaCFt5MakhJwDG7v1uthUOK9iZClK8A4djB5dgXwqT3zxhooqQxtbe4bwpevRLmYOSWZ 2okzIXHjpd/x8l96c1AFiwgs2C9yZuvALWKXfgZMKB51GPaOgxXN3hkXV2bbRZectpmj sGAurE3wl7j/Jsp+MZDIt/4M23o2cGKOUsxgarqk/P80EVSKawznZ+BQeLRgz2oI7OSA ETMA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=xmission.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t4si7369749pga.83.2018.12.01.05.42.14; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 05:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=xmission.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726777AbeLBAyM (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 19:54:12 -0500 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:45665 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726619AbeLBAyL (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 19:54:11 -0500 Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1gT5Wa-0002pT-JH; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 06:41:36 -0700 Received: from ip68-227-174-240.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.174.240] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1gT5WZ-000754-JT; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 06:41:36 -0700 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Christian Brauner , Florian Weimer , LKML , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Jann Horn , Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Aleksa Sarai , Al Viro , Linux FS Devel , Linux API , Daniel Colascione , Tim Murray , linux-man , Kees Cook References: <20181120105124.14733-1-christian@brauner.io> <87in0g5aqo.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <36323361-90BD-41AF-AB5B-EE0D7BA02C21@amacapital.net> <993B98AC-51DF-4131-AF7F-7DA2A7F485F1@brauner.io> <20181129195551.woe2bl3z3yaysqb6@brauner.io> <6E21165F-2C76-4877-ABD9-0C86D55FD6AA@amacapital.net> <87y39b2lm2.fsf@xmission.com> <20181130065606.kmilbbq46oeycjp5@brauner.io> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 07:41:30 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Andy Lutomirski's message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:35:45 -0800") Message-ID: <87va4d1i0l.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1gT5WZ-000754-JT;;;mid=<87va4d1i0l.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.174.240;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1849rd1zGyAih2l8kAX++Rg5ToGYkIpqPU= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.174.240 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on sa02.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,T_TooManySym_01,T_TooManySym_02 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.0 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4999] * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject * 0.0 T_TooManySym_02 5+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Andy Lutomirski X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 595 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.08 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.2 (0.5%), b_tie_ro: 2.1 (0.4%), parse: 1.30 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 26 (4.4%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.76 (0.3%), tests_pri_-1000: 22 (3.7%), tests_pri_-950: 2.2 (0.4%), tests_pri_-900: 1.92 (0.3%), tests_pri_-90: 41 (6.9%), check_bayes: 38 (6.4%), b_tokenize: 16 (2.7%), b_tok_get_all: 9 (1.5%), b_comp_prob: 4.3 (0.7%), b_tok_touch_all: 3.5 (0.6%), b_finish: 0.86 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 469 (78.8%), check_dkim_signature: 1.01 (0.2%), check_dkim_adsp: 5 (0.9%), tests_pri_10: 4.0 (0.7%), tests_pri_500: 17 (2.9%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andy Lutomirski writes: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:41 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> siginfo_t as it is now still has a number of other downsides, and Andy in >> 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 >> it as compat_siginfo depending on in_compat_syscall()/in_x32_syscall() >> should work correctly, but feels wrong to me, or at least inconsistent >> with how we do this elsewhere. > > BTW, do we consider siginfo_t to be extensible? If so, and if we pass > in a pointer, presumably we should pass a length as well. siginfo is extensible in the sense that the structure is 128 bytes and we use at most 48 bytes. siginfo gets embedded in stack frames when signals get delivered so a size change upwards is non-trivial, and is possibly and ABI break so I believe a length field would be pointless. Eric