Patch "signal/testing: Don't look for __SI_FAULT in userspace" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

Patch "signal/testing: Don't look for __SI_FAULT in userspace" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[gregkh]

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    signal/testing: Don't look for __SI_FAULT in userspace

to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     signal-testing-don-t-look-for-__si_fault-in-userspace.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.


>From d12fe87e62d773e81e0cb3a123c5a480a10d7d91 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:36:57 -0500
Subject: signal/testing: Don't look for __SI_FAULT in userspace

From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>

commit d12fe87e62d773e81e0cb3a123c5a480a10d7d91 upstream.

Fix the debug print statements in these tests where they reference
si_codes and in particular __SI_FAULT.  __SI_FAULT is a kernel
internal value and should never be seen by userspace.

While I am in there also fix si_code_str.  si_codes are an enumeration
there are not a bitmap so == and not & is the apropriate operation to
test for an si_code.

Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Fixes: 5f23f6d082a9 ("x86/pkeys: Add self-tests")
Fixes: e754aedc26ef ("x86/mpx, selftests: Add MPX self test")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 tools/testing/selftests/x86/mpx-mini-test.c   |    3 +--
 tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c |   13 ++++++-------
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/mpx-mini-test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/mpx-mini-test.c
@@ -419,8 +419,7 @@ void handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si,
 		br_count++;
 		dprintf1("#BR 0x%jx (total seen: %d)\n", status, br_count);
 
-#define __SI_FAULT      (3 << 16)
-#define SEGV_BNDERR     (__SI_FAULT|3)  /* failed address bound checks */
+#define SEGV_BNDERR     3  /* failed address bound checks */
 
 		dprintf2("Saw a #BR! status 0x%jx at %016lx br_reason: %jx\n",
 				status, ip, br_reason);
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c
@@ -224,19 +224,18 @@ void dump_mem(void *dumpme, int len_byte
 	}
 }
 
-#define __SI_FAULT      (3 << 16)
-#define SEGV_BNDERR     (__SI_FAULT|3)  /* failed address bound checks */
-#define SEGV_PKUERR     (__SI_FAULT|4)
+#define SEGV_BNDERR     3  /* failed address bound checks */
+#define SEGV_PKUERR     4
 
 static char *si_code_str(int si_code)
 {
-	if (si_code & SEGV_MAPERR)
+	if (si_code == SEGV_MAPERR)
 		return "SEGV_MAPERR";
-	if (si_code & SEGV_ACCERR)
+	if (si_code == SEGV_ACCERR)
 		return "SEGV_ACCERR";
-	if (si_code & SEGV_BNDERR)
+	if (si_code == SEGV_BNDERR)
 		return "SEGV_BNDERR";
-	if (si_code & SEGV_PKUERR)
+	if (si_code == SEGV_PKUERR)
 		return "SEGV_PKUERR";
 	return "UNKNOWN";
 }


Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from ebiederm@xmission.com are

queue-4.9/x86-boot-64-verify-alignment-of-the-load-segment.patch
queue-4.9/signal-testing-don-t-look-for-__si_fault-in-userspace.patch
queue-4.9/x86-build-64-force-the-linker-to-use-2mb-page-size.patch