From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/15] signal/arm64: siginfo cleanups
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:39:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ftxvs2i0.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180926173841.GD175719@arrakis.emea.arm.com> (Catalin Marinas's message of "Wed, 26 Sep 2018 18:38:42 +0100")
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> This is the continuation of my work to sort out signaling of exceptions
>> with siginfo. The old signal sending functions by taking a siginfo
>> argument resulted in their callers having to deal with the fiddly nature
>> of siginfo directly. In small numbers of callers this is not a problem
>> but in the number of callers in the kernel this resulted in cases
>> where fields were not initialized or improperly initialized before
>> being passed to userspace.
>>
>> To avoid having to worry about those issues I have added new signal
>> sending functions that each deal wit a different siginfo case. When
>> using these functions there is no room for the fiddly nature of siginfo
>> to cause mistakes.
>>
>> This is my set of changes to update arm64 to use those functions.
>> Along with some refactoring so those functions can be cleanly used.
>>
>> Folks please review and double check me. I think I have kept these
>> changes simple and obviously correct but I am human and mess up
>> sometimes.
>
> Nice clean-up, thanks. I started reviewing the patches, I should finish
> by tomorrow (I also applied them locally to give some testing).
>
>> 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.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-27 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-24 9:07 [REVIEW][PATCH 00/15] signal/arm64: siginfo cleanups Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 01/15] signal/arm64: Push siginfo generation into arm64_notify_die Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 02/15] signal/arm64: Remove unneeded tsk parameter from arm64_force_sig_info Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 03/15] signal/arm64: Factor out arm64_show_signal " Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 04/15] signal/arm64: Factor set_thread_esr out of __do_user_fault Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 05/15] signal/arm64: Consolidate the two hwpoison cases in do_page_fault Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 06/15] signal/arm64: For clarity separate the 3 signal sending " Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 07/15] signal/arm64: Expand __do_user_fault and remove it Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 08/15] signal/arm64: Only perform one esr_to_fault_info call in do_page_fault Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 09/15] signal/arm64: Only call set_thread_esr once " Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 10/15] signal/arm64: Add and use arm64_force_sig_fault where appropriate Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 11/15] signal/arm64: Add and use arm64_force_sig_mceerr as appropriate Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 12/15] signal/arm64: Remove arm64_force_sig_info Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 13/15] signal/arm64: In ptrace_hbptriggered name the signal description string Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 14/15] signal/arm64: Add and use arm64_force_sig_ptrace_errno_trap Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-24 9:10 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 15/15] signal/arm64: Use send_sig_fault where appropriate Eric W. Biederman
2018-09-26 17:38 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 00/15] signal/arm64: siginfo cleanups Catalin Marinas
2018-09-27 9:39 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2018-09-27 13:50 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ftxvs2i0.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).