[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180117173944.GK22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:39:44 +0000
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] signal/arm64: Document conflicts with SI_USER and
SIGFPE, SIGTRAP, SIGBUS
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:24:06AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com> writes:
[...]
> > Should si_code simply be ignored for the SIGKILL case?
>
> I know what x86 does in a similar case is it uses force_sig instead of
> force_sig_info. Then the generic code gets to worry about
>
> If the appropriate paths generic paths get to worry about what siginfo
> to fill in in that case. Which for SI_KERNEL is zero for everything
> except the si_code and the si_signo.
>
> That seems perfectly reasonable.
OK, I'll go with SI_KERNEL then.
Cheers
---Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists