From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: signal: Ensure si_code is valid for all fault signals Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 16:37:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20180308163713.GD9573@arm.com> References: <1519926248-12591-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <1519926248-12591-4-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1519926248-12591-4-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Dave Martin Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, James Morse , "Eric W. Biederman" , Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Hi Dave, On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 05:44:08PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > Currently, as reported by Eric, an invalid si_code value 0 is > passed in many signals delivered to userspace in response to faults > and other kernel errors. Typically 0 is passed when the fault is > insufficiently diagnosable or when there does not appear to be any > sensible alternative value to choose. This looks good to me. Please could you rebase it on top of for-next/core, so that I can apply it for 4.17? The other two patches in the series need an Ack for the core changes, so it would be worth dealing with those separately imo. Cheers, Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:40388 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752052AbeCHQhK (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:37:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 16:37:14 +0000 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: signal: Ensure si_code is valid for all fault signals Message-ID: <20180308163713.GD9573@arm.com> References: <1519926248-12591-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <1519926248-12591-4-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1519926248-12591-4-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dave Martin Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Catalin Marinas , James Morse Message-ID: <20180308163714.kjO51iKpj8TXhhjE9QBnoMqZ3Df-OcoFt6M03ihXx4g@z> Hi Dave, On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 05:44:08PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > Currently, as reported by Eric, an invalid si_code value 0 is > passed in many signals delivered to userspace in response to faults > and other kernel errors. Typically 0 is passed when the fault is > insufficiently diagnosable or when there does not appear to be any > sensible alternative value to choose. This looks good to me. Please could you rebase it on top of for-next/core, so that I can apply it for 4.17? The other two patches in the series need an Ack for the core changes, so it would be worth dealing with those separately imo. Cheers, Will