lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 5/8] powerpc/64: make buildable without CONFIG_COMPAT
Michal Suchánek's on March 25, 2020 5:30 am:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 06:54:20PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Michal Suchanek's on March 19, 2020 10:19 pm:
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c
>> > index 4b0152108f61..a264989626fd 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c
>> > @@ -247,7 +247,6 @@ static void do_signal(struct task_struct *tsk)
>> > sigset_t *oldset = sigmask_to_save();
>> > struct ksignal ksig = { .sig = 0 };
>> > int ret;
>> > - int is32 = is_32bit_task();
>> >
>> > BUG_ON(tsk != current);
>> >
>> > @@ -277,7 +276,7 @@ static void do_signal(struct task_struct *tsk)
>> >
>> > rseq_signal_deliver(&ksig, tsk->thread.regs);
>> >
>> > - if (is32) {
>> > + if (is_32bit_task()) {
>> > if (ksig.ka.sa.sa_flags & SA_SIGINFO)
>> > ret = handle_rt_signal32(&ksig, oldset, tsk);
>> > else
>>
>> Unnecessary?
>>
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall_64.c
>> > index 87d95b455b83..2dcbfe38f5ac 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall_64.c
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall_64.c
>> > @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ notrace long system_call_exception(long r3, long r4, long r5,
>> > long r6, long r7, long r8,
>> > unsigned long r0, struct pt_regs *regs)
>> > {
>> > - unsigned long ti_flags;
>> > syscall_fn f;
>> >
>> > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC_IRQ_SOFT_MASK_DEBUG))
>> > @@ -68,8 +67,7 @@ notrace long system_call_exception(long r3, long r4, long r5,
>> >
>> > local_irq_enable();
>> >
>> > - ti_flags = current_thread_info()->flags;
>> > - if (unlikely(ti_flags & _TIF_SYSCALL_DOTRACE)) {
>> > + if (unlikely(current_thread_info()->flags & _TIF_SYSCALL_DOTRACE)) {
>> > /*
>> > * We use the return value of do_syscall_trace_enter() as the
>> > * syscall number. If the syscall was rejected for any reason
>> > @@ -94,7 +92,7 @@ notrace long system_call_exception(long r3, long r4, long r5,
>> > /* May be faster to do array_index_nospec? */
>> > barrier_nospec();
>> >
>> > - if (unlikely(ti_flags & _TIF_32BIT)) {
>> > + if (unlikely(is_32bit_task())) {
>>
>> Problem is, does this allow the load of ti_flags to be used for both
>> tests, or does test_bit make it re-load?
>>
>> This could maybe be fixed by testing if(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPAT) &&
> Both points already discussed here:

Agh, I'm hopeless.

I don't think it really resolves this issue. But probably don't have time
to look at generated asm, and might never because it won't really hit
LE unless we add a 32-bit ABI. It's pretty minor though either way.

Sorry for being difficult, I really do like your patches :)

Thanks,
Nick

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-03 09:17    [W:0.162 / U:1.948 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site