Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:27:47 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Matt Morehouse <mascasa@google.com>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, jonathanh@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] signal: Introduce TRAP_PERF si_code and si_perf
 to siginfo
Message-ID: <YIBSg7Vi+U383dT7@elver.google.com>
References: <1fbf3429-42e5-0959-9a5c-91de80f02b6a@samsung.com>
 <CANpmjNM8wEJngK=J8Lt9npkZgrSWoRsqkdajErWEoY_=M1GW5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <43f8a3bf-34c5-0fc9-c335-7f92eaf23022@samsung.com>
 <dccaa337-f3e5-08e4-fe40-a603811bb13e@samsung.com>
 <CANpmjNP6-yKpxHqYFiA8Up-ujBQaeP7xyq1BrsV-NqMjJ-uHAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <740077ce-efe1-b171-f807-bc5fd95a32ba@samsung.com>
 <f114ff4a-6612-0935-12ac-0e2ac18d896c@samsung.com>
 <CANpmjNM6bQpc49teN-9qQhCXoJXaek5stFGR2kPwDroSFBc0fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <cf6ed5cd-3202-65ce-86bc-6f1eba1b7d17@samsung.com>
 <CANpmjNPr_JtRC762ap8PQVmsFNY5YhHvOk0wNcPHq=ZQt-qxYg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNPr_JtRC762ap8PQVmsFNY5YhHvOk0wNcPHq=ZQt-qxYg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.5 (2021-01-21)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 05:11PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> +Cc linux-arm-kernel
> 
[...]
> >
> > I've managed to reproduce this issue with a public Raspberry Pi OS Lite
> > rootfs image, even without deploying kernel modules:
> >
> > https://downloads.raspberrypi.org/raspios_lite_armhf/images/raspios_lite_armhf-2021-03-25/2021-03-04-raspios-buster-armhf-lite.zip
> >
> > # qemu-system-arm -M virt -smp 2 -m 512 -kernel zImage -append "earlycon
> > console=ttyAMA0 root=/dev/vda2 rw rootwait" -serial stdio -display none
> > -monitor null -device virtio-blk-device,drive=virtio-blk -drive
> > file=/tmp/2021-03-04-raspios-buster-armhf-lite.img,id=virtio-blk,if=none,format=raw
> > -netdev user,id=user -device virtio-net-device,netdev=user
> >
> > The above one doesn't boot if zImage z compiled from commit fb6cc127e0b6
> > and boots if compiled from 2e498d0a74e5. In both cases I've used default
> > arm/multi_v7_defconfig and
> > gcc-linaro-6.4.1-2017.11-x86_64_arm-linux-gnueabi toolchain.
> 
> Yup, I've narrowed it down to the addition of "__u64 _perf" to
> siginfo_t. My guess is the __u64 causes a different alignment for a
> bunch of adjacent fields. It seems that x86 and m68k are the only ones
> that have compile-time tests for the offsets. Arm should probably add
> those -- I have added a bucket of static_assert() in
> arch/arm/kernel/signal.c and see that something's off.
> 
> I'll hopefully have a fix in a day or so.

Arm and compiler folks: are there some special alignment requirement for
__u64 on arm 32-bit? (And if there is for arm64, please shout as well.)

With the static-asserts below, the only thing that I can do to fix it is
to completely remove the __u64. Padding it before or after with __u32
just does not work. It seems that the use of __u64 shifts everything
in __sifields by 4 bytes.

diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
index d0bb9125c853..b02a4ac55938 100644
--- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
+++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
@@ -92,7 +92,10 @@ union __sifields {
 				__u32 _pkey;
 			} _addr_pkey;
 			/* used when si_code=TRAP_PERF */
-			__u64 _perf;
+			struct {
+				__u32 _perf1;
+				__u32 _perf2;
+			} _perf;
 		};
 	} _sigfault;

^^ works, but I'd hate to have to split this into 2 __u32 because it
makes the whole design worse.

What alignment trick do we have to do here to fix it for __u64?


------ >8 ------

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
index a3a38d0a4c85..6c558dc314c3 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
@@ -725,3 +725,41 @@ asmlinkage void do_rseq_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	rseq_syscall(regs);
 }
 #endif
+
+/*
+ * Compile-time tests for siginfo_t offsets. Changes to NSIG* likely come with
+ * new fields; new fields should be added below.
+ */
+static_assert(NSIGILL	== 11);
+static_assert(NSIGFPE	== 15);
+static_assert(NSIGSEGV	== 9);
+static_assert(NSIGBUS	== 5);
+static_assert(NSIGTRAP	== 6);
+static_assert(NSIGCHLD	== 6);
+static_assert(NSIGSYS	== 2);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_signo)	== 0x00);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_errno)	== 0x04);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_code)	== 0x08);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_pid)	== 0x0c);
+#if 0
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_uid)	== 0x10);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_tid)	== 0x0c);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_overrun)	== 0x10);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_status)	== 0x14);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_utime)	== 0x18);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_stime)	== 0x1c);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_value)	== 0x14);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_int)	== 0x14);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_ptr)	== 0x14);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_addr)	== 0x0c);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_addr_lsb)	== 0x10);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_lower)	== 0x14);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_upper)	== 0x18);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_pkey)	== 0x14);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_perf)	== 0x10);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_band)	== 0x0c);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_fd)	== 0x10);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_call_addr)	== 0x0c);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_syscall)	== 0x10);
+static_assert(offsetof(siginfo_t, si_arch)	== 0x14);
+#endif