From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCHv2 03/26] signal/arm64: Use force_sig not force_sig_fault for SIGKILL Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 10:34:25 -0500 Message-ID: <87muj51dha.fsf@xmission.com> References: <20190523003916.20726-1-ebiederm@xmission.com> <20190523003916.20726-4-ebiederm@xmission.com> <20190523101702.GG26646@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <875zq1gnh4.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20190523161509.GE31896@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <8736l4evkn.fsf@xmission.com> <20190524100008.GE3432@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <87o93rcwee.fsf@xmission.com> <20190529151227.GF11154@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190529151227.GF11154@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> (Will Deacon's message of "Wed, 29 May 2019 16:12:27 +0100") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Containers , Oleg Nesterov , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Dave Martin , James Morse List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Will Deacon writes: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 05:36:41PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Will Deacon writes: >> >> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:20PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Will Deacon writes: >> >> >> >> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:11:19AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c >> >> >> index ade32046f3fe..e45d5b440fb1 100644 >> >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c >> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c >> >> >> @@ -256,7 +256,10 @@ void arm64_force_sig_fault(int signo, int code, void __user *addr, >> >> >> const char *str) >> >> >> { >> >> >> arm64_show_signal(signo, str); >> >> >> - force_sig_fault(signo, code, addr, current); >> >> >> + if (signo == SIGKILL) >> >> >> + force_sig(SIGKILL, current); >> >> >> + else >> >> >> + force_sig_fault(signo, code, addr, current); >> >> >> } >> >> > >> >> > Acked-by: Will Deacon >> >> > >> >> > Are you planning to send this series on, or would you like me to pick this >> >> > into the arm64 tree? >> >> >> >> I am planning on taking this through siginfo tree, unless it causes >> >> problems. >> > >> > Okey doke, it would just be nice to see this patch land in 5.2, that's >> > all. >> >> As this does not appear to have any real world consequences I am aiming >> at 5.3. If someone else would like to take it and feed it to Linus >> sooner I won't object. > > Thanks. I've picked this patch up as part of the arm64 fixes I plan to send > for -rc3. Sounds good. We might have a trivial conflict between our branches as I am also including this in my for-next branch, as I have further patches that go on to remove the task argument from force_sig and force_sig_fault. But I don't think it is anything to worry about. Eric From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:50759 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725914AbfE2Pec (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 11:34:32 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) References: <20190523003916.20726-1-ebiederm@xmission.com> <20190523003916.20726-4-ebiederm@xmission.com> <20190523101702.GG26646@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <875zq1gnh4.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20190523161509.GE31896@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <8736l4evkn.fsf@xmission.com> <20190524100008.GE3432@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <87o93rcwee.fsf@xmission.com> <20190529151227.GF11154@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 10:34:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20190529151227.GF11154@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> (Will Deacon's message of "Wed, 29 May 2019 16:12:27 +0100") Message-ID: <87muj51dha.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCHv2 03/26] signal/arm64: Use force_sig not force_sig_fault for SIGKILL Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Containers , Oleg Nesterov , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Dave Martin , James Morse Message-ID: <20190529153425.8I6vo7aRHyhWBvuKL3IA2zv2vpJVyjqdUffm08WwKQA@z> Will Deacon writes: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 05:36:41PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Will Deacon writes: >> >> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:20PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Will Deacon writes: >> >> >> >> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:11:19AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c >> >> >> index ade32046f3fe..e45d5b440fb1 100644 >> >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c >> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c >> >> >> @@ -256,7 +256,10 @@ void arm64_force_sig_fault(int signo, int code, void __user *addr, >> >> >> const char *str) >> >> >> { >> >> >> arm64_show_signal(signo, str); >> >> >> - force_sig_fault(signo, code, addr, current); >> >> >> + if (signo == SIGKILL) >> >> >> + force_sig(SIGKILL, current); >> >> >> + else >> >> >> + force_sig_fault(signo, code, addr, current); >> >> >> } >> >> > >> >> > Acked-by: Will Deacon >> >> > >> >> > Are you planning to send this series on, or would you like me to pick this >> >> > into the arm64 tree? >> >> >> >> I am planning on taking this through siginfo tree, unless it causes >> >> problems. >> > >> > Okey doke, it would just be nice to see this patch land in 5.2, that's >> > all. >> >> As this does not appear to have any real world consequences I am aiming >> at 5.3. If someone else would like to take it and feed it to Linus >> sooner I won't object. > > Thanks. I've picked this patch up as part of the arm64 fixes I plan to send > for -rc3. Sounds good. We might have a trivial conflict between our branches as I am also including this in my for-next branch, as I have further patches that go on to remove the task argument from force_sig and force_sig_fault. But I don't think it is anything to worry about. Eric