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;
From:   ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>
References: <YIpkvGrBFGlB5vNj@elver.google.com>
        <m11rat9f85.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
        <CAK8P3a0+uKYwL1NhY6Hvtieghba2hKYGD6hcKx5n8=4Gtt+pHA@mail.gmail.com>
        <m15z031z0a.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> <YIxVWkT03TqcJLY3@elver.google.com>
        <m1zgxfs7zq.fsf_-_@fess.ebiederm.org>
        <m1r1irpc5v.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
        <CANpmjNNfiSgntiOzgMc5Y41KVAV_3VexdXCMADekbQEqSP3vqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 01 May 2021 10:16:58 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNNfiSgntiOzgMc5Y41KVAV_3VexdXCMADekbQEqSP3vqQ@mail.gmail.com>
        (Marco Elver's message of "Sat, 1 May 2021 02:37:22 +0200")
Message-ID: <m1czuapjpx.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] signal: Move si_trapno into the _si_fault union
Precedence: bulk

Marco Elver <elver@google.com> writes:

> On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 01:48, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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