From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:14:48 -0800 Message-ID: <56D079F8.30409@linux.intel.com> References: <20160226164406.065a1ffc@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:12548 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754367AbcBZQOu (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:14:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160226164406.065a1ffc@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Helge Deller On 02/25/2016 09:44 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > The addition of the "u64 _pkey" has presumably changed the alignment of > the enclosing union on (some) 32 bit platforms and so added padding > after the si_code field. This is a user API issue. :-( > > [As an aside, I am pretty sure that we should not be using "u64" in a > uapi header in any case.] Ahh, so if _addr_bnd wasn't 64-bit-aligned, the compiler is free to align it and enlarge the structure. But, this only applied to architectures where _addr_bnd wasn't 64-bit-aligned: Would anybody object to _pkey being an 'unsigned long'? It would at least keep existing 64-bit userspace (mostly my tests) from having to change. Here's the snippet of the struct in question: > union { > /* used when si_code=SEGV_BNDERR */ > struct { > void __user *_lower; > void __user *_upper; > } _addr_bnd; > /* used when si_code=SEGV_PKUERR */ > u64 _pkey; > };