Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Dealing with the aliases of SI_USER

Dave Martin writes: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:16:04AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > [...] > >> The other thing we should do is to get rid of the stupid padding. >> Right now "struct siginfo" is pointlessly padded to 128 bytes. That is >> completely insane, when it's

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Dealing with the aliases of SI_USER

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:16:04AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: [...] > The other thing we should do is to get rid of the stupid padding. > Right now "struct siginfo" is pointlessly padded to 128 bytes. That is > completely insane, when it's always just zero in the kernel. Agreed, inside the

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Dealing with the aliases of SI_USER

Linus Torvalds writes: > ( > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: [snip bit about wanting what is effectively force_sig_fault instead of clear_siginfo everywhere] > The other thing we should do is to get rid of the

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Dealing with the aliases of SI_USER

Linus Torvalds writes: > ( > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: >> >> Would you consider the patchset below for -rc2? > > Ugh. The point of this series is to squash the potential for regressions even from the

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Dealing with the aliases of SI_USER

( On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Would you consider the patchset below for -rc2? Ugh. I have an irrational dislike of "clear_siginfo()". It's a nasty broken interface, which just mis-spells "memset()", and makes it non-obvious that you