On 7/3/2026 7:43 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 09:06:00PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> Currently, multiple architectures (LoongArch, RISC-V, S390, Powerpc)
>> provide identical stubs for arch_syscall_is_vdso_sigreturn() that simply
>> return false. This results in redundant boilerplate code across the tree.
>>
>> Introduce a default __weak implementation of
>> arch_syscall_is_vdso_sigreturn() directly in syscall_user_dispatch.c that
>> returns false. This allows architectures that do not utilize a vDSO
>> sigreturn to entirely drop their redundant inline definitions.
>>
>> Architectures requiring a specialized check (such as x86) will continue to
>> override this fallback with their strong symbol definitions.
>>
>> Clean up the redundant implementations in loongarch, riscv, s390
>> and powerpc.
>
>> +bool __weak arch_syscall_is_vdso_sigreturn(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>
> If we need this, please make it:
>
> #ifndef arch_syscall_is_vdso_sigreturn
> static inline bool arch_syscall_is_vdso_sigreturn(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> return false;
> }
> #endif
>
> ... and require that architectures which need this provide a CPP
> definition.
>
> The use of __weak is generally problematic, as it prevents the compiler
> form being able to elide code, and gets in the way of symbol resolution.
> It's perfectly fine to require that architectures need to provide a CPP
> definition alongside their own implementation of this function.
>
> That said, as per my comment on v15, I'd prefer that for now we DO NOT
> enable syscall user dispatch on arm64, and we first make it possible for
> architecture to express whether or not they support that, even if they
> use GENERIC_ENTRY. That might mean this patch isn't necessary right now.
That sounds good. First, focus on switching to generic entry, without
having to implement syscall user dispatch immediately.
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/[email protected]/
>
> Mark.
>
