From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:02:56 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v05 60/72] arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/signal.h: use
 __kernel_size_t instead of size_t
In-Reply-To: <1471890809-4383-61-git-send-email-mikko.rapeli@iki.fi>
References: <1471890809-4383-1-git-send-email-mikko.rapeli@iki.fi>
 <1471890809-4383-61-git-send-email-mikko.rapeli@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <1898059.B1P75dnZ5Q@wuerfel>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Monday, August 22, 2016 8:33:17 PM CEST Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/signal.h b/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/signal.h
> index 33073bd..859f2de 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/signal.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/signal.h
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ struct sigaction {
>  typedef struct sigaltstack {
>         void __user *ss_sp;
>         int ss_flags;
> -       size_t ss_size;
> +       __kernel_size_t ss_size;
>  } stack_t;

I was going to reply with an Ack, but on further consideration,
I'm not sure if we can't do this in general: size_t may be either
'unsigned int' or 'unsigned long' (depending on the architecture
and toolchain), and if kernel and glibc disagree on this, we
have a problem with any user space code that expects sigaltstack->ss_size
to be the same type as size_t (as mandated by the man page).

I wonder if there is another way to address this.

	Arnd