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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <m11rarqqx2.fsf_-_@fess.ebiederm.org>
 <CANpmjNNJ_MnNyD4R2+9i24E=9xPHKnwTh6zwWtBYkuAq1Xo6-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <m1wnshm14b.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> <YI/wJSwQitisM8Xf@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <m1sg33ip4w.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
In-Reply-To: <m1sg33ip4w.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 21:53:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CANpmjNNyvOFyEDLPKuGn-pjFTMfLCOBHOQrMocLVpdEG47Ge3A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/3] signal: Deliver all of the perf_data in si_perf
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 21:38, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
>
> > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:39:16PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> >> The one thing that this doesn't do is give you a 64bit field
> >> on 32bit architectures.
> >>
> >> On 32bit builds the layout is:
> >>
> >>      int si_signo;
> >>      int si_errno;
> >>      int si_code;
> >>      void __user *_addr;
> >>
> >> So I believe if the first 3 fields were moved into the _sifields union
> >> si_perf could define a 64bit field as it's first member and it would not
> >> break anything else.
> >>
> >> Given that the data field is 64bit that seems desirable.
> >
> > The data field is fundamentally an address, it is internally a u64
> > because the perf ring buffer has u64 alignment and it saves on compat
> > crap etc.
> >
> > So for the 32bit/compat case the high bits will always be 0 and
> > truncating into an unsigned long is fine.
>
> I see why it is fine to truncate the data field into an unsigned long.
>
> Other than technical difficulties in extending siginfo_t is there any
> reason not to define data as a __u64?

No -- like I pointed at earlier, si_perf used to be __u64, but we
can't because of the siginfo_t limitation. What we have now is fine,
and not worth dwelling over given siginfo limitations.

Thanks,
-- Marco