[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 10:29:18 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...tec.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] signal/mips: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...tec.com> writes:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/traps.c b/arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
>> index b68b4d0726d3..6c9cca9c5341 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
>> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
>> @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ void force_fcr31_sig(unsigned long fcr31, void __user *fault_addr,
>> else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_INE_X)
>> si.si_code = FPE_FLTRES;
>> else
>> - si.si_code = __SI_FAULT;
>> + si.si_code = FPE_FIXME;
>
> This is an "impossible" state to reach unless your hardware is on fire.
> One or more of the FCSR Cause bits will have been set (in `fcr31') or the
> FPE exception would not have happened.
>
> Of course there could be a simulator bug, or we could have breakage
> somewhere causing `process_fpemu_return' to be called with SIGFPE and
> inconsistent `fcr31'. So we need to handle it somehow.
>
> So what would be the right value of `si_code' to use here for such an
> unexpected exception condition? I think `BUG()' would be too big a
> hammer here. Or wouldn't it?
The possible solutions I can think of are:
WARN_ON_ONCE with a comment.
Add a new si_code to uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h perhaps FPE_IMPOSSIBLE.
Like syscall numbers si_codes are cheap.
Call force_sig() instead of force_sig_info, using just a generic
si_code.
If this is truly impossible and the compiler doesn't complain just drop
the code.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists