From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E975CC433B4 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:27:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61A16140F for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:27:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241919AbhDUQ23 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:28:29 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55960 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235062AbhDUQ22 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:28:28 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72575C06138B for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id n10-20020a05600c4f8ab0290130f0d3cba3so2887460wmq.1 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:27:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=SmfHH6hIJqwyK5X8i5q3Sks3m+nCGH0WqXp+KsNmUL8=; b=DXNQF6+X23W/5T4j3zpPuPMt02MDsg03lPN+3HSFpoY2UlMTCml7AhmoyozG0E2Q39 qk4NKcw6Mkbji1CoIrq497pJKaqywM/s/l0rqIZr+LR2Ec3BQIYPhHmgyPt1x9kQtKIg JV/RQ+1kCUHhV5WmXHyA0TQYDDBelvBNectYOsf8uCeauDfYl+EOu+xu6qLuh+dCmx6J xVOMVqOOu0T09Zh/akTZDXfT3iuYRkCZhFRBgHZnvQkd2HyWEnbCX99Pji/MzbFswFFj k63kG+iYhk8Fqo8XMDKsLmlKFxAXe4pOmXzDIUAqRHaa7nIBfRgSGDwzBmtreIbzqn4r y0pw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=SmfHH6hIJqwyK5X8i5q3Sks3m+nCGH0WqXp+KsNmUL8=; b=d0gaVitVOzDJWiew9Dr9dhLsu8d3IP1O9sUHny/+6b+CoCAph2FMTwcXPV4mCGEpw6 c9Zr5v4jvn6OHlmfEtEYZJld+E0u+p6p+W79lF5ymrGlY912Gvt/KIHD36N0BxXZnmYh UWswYiB5+vjc8g6OusZeSmhXR9QKGdf4CHlBo848vTLkFRH82gE3VNbkSRwHzJN3FTSx y2+LuH8XZvpfitwaj8cpgpm2MgOE9RhQnLjfYswnLPajhf8vtb87Mni4l4WgONih0SXG 5lOsf/Agd+rIhmHKxJsE0glK13VWlTcXFZEIDWZCBI3W8L3l/FLkc/5r+R6tvUUFYOc1 sExw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53269dwe6HNcuUVBf2dcnjJ7GQglaOhFUBaxqsyoVzWYDq+N7afL rua51Fq0Q/G/4sjg6qmK0p18ZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJws9ys5bphkU3GPm/kXkaoFkOzDHxBDE6IlGGSz8bHo2vzb71zyUPD73s4ZA5mj9uvFsZMMCA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7f16:: with SMTP id a22mr10182034wmd.17.1619022473891; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elver.google.com ([2a00:79e0:15:13:c552:ee7c:6a14:80cc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f23sm2803158wmf.37.2021.04.21.09.27.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:27:47 +0200 From: Marco Elver To: Marek Szyprowski Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Alexander Shishkin , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Ingo Molnar , Jiri Olsa , Mark Rutland , Namhyung Kim , Thomas Gleixner , Alexander Potapenko , Al Viro , Arnd Bergmann , Christian Brauner , Dmitry Vyukov , Jann Horn , Jens Axboe , Matt Morehouse , Peter Collingbourne , Ian Rogers , Oleg Nesterov , kasan-dev , linux-arch , linux-fsdevel , LKML , the arch/x86 maintainers , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Geert Uytterhoeven , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Linux ARM , 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: References: <1fbf3429-42e5-0959-9a5c-91de80f02b6a@samsung.com> <43f8a3bf-34c5-0fc9-c335-7f92eaf23022@samsung.com> <740077ce-efe1-b171-f807-bc5fd95a32ba@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.5 (2021-01-21) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org 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