Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] signal: Move si_trapno into the _si_fault union

[Eric W. Biederman]

Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

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