From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/15] signal/arm64: siginfo cleanups Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:50:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20180927135017.GC44459@arrakis.emea.arm.com> References: <871s9j462u.fsf@xmission.com> <20180926173841.GD175719@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <87ftxvs2i0.fsf@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ftxvs2i0.fsf@xmission.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:39:35AM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Catalin Marinas writes: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> After these patches have had a chance to be reviewed I plan to merge > >> them by my siginfo tree. If you would rather take them in the arm64 > >> tree let me know. All of the prerequisites should have been merged > >> through Linus's tree several releases ago. > > > > Either way works for me. There is a trivial conflict in > > force_signal_inject() with the arm64 for-next/core tree so I could as > > well put them on top of this branch and send them during the 4.20 > > merging window. > > As long as there is a trivial conflict I would like to keep everything > in one tree. > > There is a following patchset that manages to reduce the size of struct > siginfo in the kernel that I have also posted for review. With > everything in one tree I can make that change now, and just cross it off > my list of things to worry about. Fine by me: Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas Tested-by: Catalin Marinas The conflict will appear in -next but the resolution is simple: diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c index 21689c6a985f,856b32aa03d8..adb0a32c1568 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c @@@ -353,12 -366,6 +368,9 @@@ void force_signal_inject(int signal, in const char *desc; struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs(); + if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs))) + return; + - clear_siginfo(&info); - switch (signal) { case SIGILL: desc = "undefined instruction"; -- Catalin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34882 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727175AbeI0UIn (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:08:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:50:18 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/15] signal/arm64: siginfo cleanups Message-ID: <20180927135017.GC44459@arrakis.emea.arm.com> References: <871s9j462u.fsf@xmission.com> <20180926173841.GD175719@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <87ftxvs2i0.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ftxvs2i0.fsf@xmission.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <20180927135018.T1MKh3szbxWbmYiWp8UteLaOPLg2F0jTdFunclBQcPs@z> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:39:35AM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Catalin Marinas writes: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> After these patches have had a chance to be reviewed I plan to merge > >> them by my siginfo tree. If you would rather take them in the arm64 > >> tree let me know. All of the prerequisites should have been merged > >> through Linus's tree several releases ago. > > > > Either way works for me. There is a trivial conflict in > > force_signal_inject() with the arm64 for-next/core tree so I could as > > well put them on top of this branch and send them during the 4.20 > > merging window. > > As long as there is a trivial conflict I would like to keep everything > in one tree. > > There is a following patchset that manages to reduce the size of struct > siginfo in the kernel that I have also posted for review. With > everything in one tree I can make that change now, and just cross it off > my list of things to worry about. Fine by me: Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas Tested-by: Catalin Marinas The conflict will appear in -next but the resolution is simple: diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c index 21689c6a985f,856b32aa03d8..adb0a32c1568 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c @@@ -353,12 -366,6 +368,9 @@@ void force_signal_inject(int signal, in const char *desc; struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs(); + if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs))) + return; + - clear_siginfo(&info); - switch (signal) { case SIGILL: desc = "undefined instruction"; -- Catalin