From: Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] m68k: Avoid CONFIG_COLDFIRE switch in uapi header
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 17:18:23 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dd659c33-59ed-4a39-a260-aac45cd5b408@linux-m68k.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c2832612-9a67-4dc1-a8c2-4cc026b14567@redhat.com>
Hi Thomas,
On 23/2/24 18:13, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 16.09, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024, at 15:13, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>>> On 20/2/24 02:01, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> We should not use any CONFIG switches in uapi headers since these
>>>> only work during kernel compilation; they are not defined for
>>>> userspace. Fix it by moving the struct pt_regs to the kernel-internal
>>>> header instead - struct pt_regs does not seem to be required for
>>>> the userspace headers on m68k at all.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v2: Move the struct instead of changing the #ifdef
>>>>
>>>> See previous discussion here:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6e3f2a2e-2430-4b4f-9ead-d9a4d5e42713@linux-m68k.org/
>>>
>>> I am fine with this. FWIW the following architectures do
>>> not define pt_regs in their uapi/ptrace.h header either:
>>> arc, arm64, loongarch, nios2, openrisc, riscv, s390, xtensa
>>> Though quite a few of them have a user_pt_regs instead.
>>>
>>> So for me:
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>
>>>
>>> Geert, Arnd, do you have any thoughts on this?
>>
>> It clearly doesn't change the ABI, so that part is fine.
>>
>> If asm/ptrace.h is included by some userspace tool to
>> get the definition, it might cause a compile-time error
>> that needs a trivial source change.
>>
>> This could be needed for ptrace (gdb, strace) or signal
>> handling and setjmp (libc), though it's more likely that these
>> already have their own copies.
>
> If we still feel unsure, we should maybe rather go with v1:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231110103120.387517-1-thuth@redhat.com/
>
> ?
We have not had much movement on this.
So... I am confidant that v2 is good, but lets err on the side of caution first up.
I have applied v1 to the m68knommu git tree, for-next branch.
Thanks
Greg
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-02 7:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-19 16:01 [PATCH v2] m68k: Avoid CONFIG_COLDFIRE switch in uapi header Thomas Huth
2024-02-20 14:13 ` Greg Ungerer
2024-02-20 15:09 ` Arnd Bergmann
2024-02-23 8:13 ` Thomas Huth
2024-04-02 7:18 ` Greg Ungerer [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=dd659c33-59ed-4a39-a260-aac45cd5b408@linux-m68k.org \
--to=gerg@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).