mbox series

[0/3] arm64/sve: UAPI: Disentangle ptrace.h from sigcontext.h

Message ID 1544556407-19897-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series arm64/sve: UAPI: Disentangle ptrace.h from sigcontext.h | expand

Message

Dave Martin Dec. 11, 2018, 7:26 p.m. UTC
This patch refactors the UAPI header definitions for the Arm SVE
extension to avoid multiple-definition problems when userspace mixes its
own sigcontext.h definitions with the kernel's ptrace.h (which is
apparently routine).

A common backend header is created to hold common definitions, suitably
namespaced, and with an appropriate header guard.

See the commit message in patch 3 for further explanation of why this
is needed.

Because of the non-trivial header guard in the new sve_context.h, patch
1 adds support to headers_install.sh to munge #if defined(_UAPI_FOO) in
a similar way to the current handling of #ifndef _UAPI_FOO.

Dave Martin (3):
  kbuild: install_headers.sh: Strip _UAPI from #if-defined() guards
  arm64/sve: ptrace: Fix SVE_PT_REGS_OFFSET definition
  arm64/sve: Disentangle <uapi/asm/ptrace.h> from
    <uapi/asm/sigcontext.h>

 arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h      | 39 ++++++++++-----------
 arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h  | 56 +++++++++++++++----------------
 arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/sve_context.h | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 scripts/headers_install.sh                |  1 +
 4 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/sve_context.h

Comments

Szabolcs Nagy Dec. 14, 2018, 6:13 p.m. UTC | #1
On 11/12/2018 19:26, Dave Martin wrote:
> This patch refactors the UAPI header definitions for the Arm SVE
> extension to avoid multiple-definition problems when userspace mixes its
> own sigcontext.h definitions with the kernel's ptrace.h (which is
> apparently routine).
> 
> A common backend header is created to hold common definitions, suitably
> namespaced, and with an appropriate header guard.
> 
> See the commit message in patch 3 for further explanation of why this
> is needed.
> 
> Because of the non-trivial header guard in the new sve_context.h, patch
> 1 adds support to headers_install.sh to munge #if defined(_UAPI_FOO) in
> a similar way to the current handling of #ifndef _UAPI_FOO.
> 

thanks for doing this.

the patches fix the gdb build issue on musl libc with an
additional gdb patch:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-12/msg00152.html
(in userspace i'd expect users relying on signal.h providing
whatever is in asm/sigcontext.h.)

i think sve_context.h could be made to work with direct include,
even if that's not useful because there is no public api there.
(and then you dont need the first patch)

> Dave Martin (3):
>   kbuild: install_headers.sh: Strip _UAPI from #if-defined() guards
>   arm64/sve: ptrace: Fix SVE_PT_REGS_OFFSET definition
>   arm64/sve: Disentangle <uapi/asm/ptrace.h> from
>     <uapi/asm/sigcontext.h>
> 
>  arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h      | 39 ++++++++++-----------
>  arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h  | 56 +++++++++++++++----------------
>  arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/sve_context.h | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  scripts/headers_install.sh                |  1 +
>  4 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/sve_context.h
>
Dave Martin Dec. 14, 2018, 6:25 p.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 06:13:33PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 11/12/2018 19:26, Dave Martin wrote:
> > This patch refactors the UAPI header definitions for the Arm SVE
> > extension to avoid multiple-definition problems when userspace mixes its
> > own sigcontext.h definitions with the kernel's ptrace.h (which is
> > apparently routine).
> > 
> > A common backend header is created to hold common definitions, suitably
> > namespaced, and with an appropriate header guard.
> > 
> > See the commit message in patch 3 for further explanation of why this
> > is needed.
> > 
> > Because of the non-trivial header guard in the new sve_context.h, patch
> > 1 adds support to headers_install.sh to munge #if defined(_UAPI_FOO) in
> > a similar way to the current handling of #ifndef _UAPI_FOO.
> > 
> 
> thanks for doing this.
> 
> the patches fix the gdb build issue on musl libc with an
> additional gdb patch:
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-12/msg00152.html
> (in userspace i'd expect users relying on signal.h providing
> whatever is in asm/sigcontext.h.)
> 
> i think sve_context.h could be made to work with direct include,
> even if that's not useful because there is no public api there.
> (and then you dont need the first patch)

My general view is that if you want the sigframe types userspace should
usually include <ucontext.h> and refer to mcontext_t.

Because the prototype for sa_sigaction() specifies a void * for the
ucontext argument, I've generally assumed that <signal.h> is not
sufficient to get ucontext_t (or mcontext_t) (but maybe I'm too paranoid
there).

Non-POSIX-flavoured software might include <asm/sigcontext.h> directly.
In glibc/musl libc will that conflict with <signal.h>, or can the two
coexist?

Cheers
---Dave
Szabolcs Nagy Dec. 14, 2018, 7 p.m. UTC | #3
On 14/12/2018 18:25, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 06:13:33PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> On 11/12/2018 19:26, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> This patch refactors the UAPI header definitions for the Arm SVE
>>> extension to avoid multiple-definition problems when userspace mixes its
>>> own sigcontext.h definitions with the kernel's ptrace.h (which is
>>> apparently routine).
>>>
>>> A common backend header is created to hold common definitions, suitably
>>> namespaced, and with an appropriate header guard.
>>>
>>> See the commit message in patch 3 for further explanation of why this
>>> is needed.
>>>
>>> Because of the non-trivial header guard in the new sve_context.h, patch
>>> 1 adds support to headers_install.sh to munge #if defined(_UAPI_FOO) in
>>> a similar way to the current handling of #ifndef _UAPI_FOO.
>>>
>>
>> thanks for doing this.
>>
>> the patches fix the gdb build issue on musl libc with an
>> additional gdb patch:
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-12/msg00152.html
>> (in userspace i'd expect users relying on signal.h providing
>> whatever is in asm/sigcontext.h.)
>>
>> i think sve_context.h could be made to work with direct include,
>> even if that's not useful because there is no public api there.
>> (and then you dont need the first patch)
> 
> My general view is that if you want the sigframe types userspace should
> usually include <ucontext.h> and refer to mcontext_t.
> 

ucontext.h does not expose the asm/sigcontext.h types in glibc,
but it is compatible with the inclusion of asm/sigcontext.h
(or signal.h).

in musl ucontext.h includes signal.h and signal.h provides
the asm/sigcontext.h api with abi compatible definitions.

> Because the prototype for sa_sigaction() specifies a void * for the
> ucontext argument, I've generally assumed that <signal.h> is not
> sufficient to get ucontext_t (or mcontext_t) (but maybe I'm too paranoid
> there).

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/signal.h.html

"The <signal.h> header shall define the ucontext_t type as a structure
 that shall include at least the following members:
...
 mcontext_t  uc_mcontext A machine-specific representation of the saved
             context."

so signal.h must define ucontext_t but mcontext_t can be opaque.
(it is opaque with posix conform feature tests to avoid
namespace pollution, but with _GNU_SOURCE defined all
asm/sigcontext.h apis are there and mcontext_t matches
struct sigcontext)

> 
> Non-POSIX-flavoured software might include <asm/sigcontext.h> directly.
> In glibc/musl libc will that conflict with <signal.h>, or can the two
> coexist?

if you compile e.g in standard conform mode then
i think signal.h and asm/sigcontext.h are compatible.

> 
> Cheers
> ---Dave
>
Dave Martin Dec. 14, 2018, 7:28 p.m. UTC | #4
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 07:00:07PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 14/12/2018 18:25, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 06:13:33PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2018 19:26, Dave Martin wrote:
> >>> This patch refactors the UAPI header definitions for the Arm SVE
> >>> extension to avoid multiple-definition problems when userspace mixes its
> >>> own sigcontext.h definitions with the kernel's ptrace.h (which is
> >>> apparently routine).
> >>>
> >>> A common backend header is created to hold common definitions, suitably
> >>> namespaced, and with an appropriate header guard.
> >>>
> >>> See the commit message in patch 3 for further explanation of why this
> >>> is needed.
> >>>
> >>> Because of the non-trivial header guard in the new sve_context.h, patch
> >>> 1 adds support to headers_install.sh to munge #if defined(_UAPI_FOO) in
> >>> a similar way to the current handling of #ifndef _UAPI_FOO.
> >>>
> >>
> >> thanks for doing this.
> >>
> >> the patches fix the gdb build issue on musl libc with an
> >> additional gdb patch:
> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-12/msg00152.html
> >> (in userspace i'd expect users relying on signal.h providing
> >> whatever is in asm/sigcontext.h.)
> >>
> >> i think sve_context.h could be made to work with direct include,
> >> even if that's not useful because there is no public api there.
> >> (and then you dont need the first patch)
> > 
> > My general view is that if you want the sigframe types userspace should
> > usually include <ucontext.h> and refer to mcontext_t.
> > 
> 
> ucontext.h does not expose the asm/sigcontext.h types in glibc,
> but it is compatible with the inclusion of asm/sigcontext.h
> (or signal.h).
> 
> in musl ucontext.h includes signal.h and signal.h provides
> the asm/sigcontext.h api with abi compatible definitions.
> 
> > Because the prototype for sa_sigaction() specifies a void * for the
> > ucontext argument, I've generally assumed that <signal.h> is not
> > sufficient to get ucontext_t (or mcontext_t) (but maybe I'm too paranoid
> > there).
> 
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/signal.h.html
> 
> "The <signal.h> header shall define the ucontext_t type as a structure
>  that shall include at least the following members:
> ...
>  mcontext_t  uc_mcontext A machine-specific representation of the saved
>              context."
> 
> so signal.h must define ucontext_t but mcontext_t can be opaque.
> (it is opaque with posix conform feature tests to avoid
> namespace pollution, but with _GNU_SOURCE defined all
> asm/sigcontext.h apis are there and mcontext_t matches
> struct sigcontext)

I see.  Sounds reasonable.

> > 
> > Non-POSIX-flavoured software might include <asm/sigcontext.h> directly.
> > In glibc/musl libc will that conflict with <signal.h>, or can the two
> > coexist?
> 
> if you compile e.g in standard conform mode then
> i think signal.h and asm/sigcontext.h are compatible.

So long as we don't break any existing usage (?) I guess this is fine.

Cheers
---Dave