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: Fri, 24 May 2019 17:36:41 -0500 Message-ID: <87o93rcwee.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190524100008.GE3432@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> (Will Deacon's message of "Fri, 24 May 2019 11:00:08 +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 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. Eric From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:33143 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2404233AbfEXWhC (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2019 18:37:02 -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> Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 17:36:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20190524100008.GE3432@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> (Will Deacon's message of "Fri, 24 May 2019 11:00:08 +0100") Message-ID: <87o93rcwee.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: <20190524223641.npfC40irewJBHdGnXvXLBv7RG8KhNCOrxkj3sJ3BQm8@z> 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. Eric