[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180921185429.4cda432e@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:54:29 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 7/9] signal/poewrpc: Specialize _exception_pkey
for handling pkey exceptions
Hi Eric,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:58:48 +0200 "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> Now that _exception no longer calls _exception_pkey it is no longer
> necessary to handle any signal with any si_code. All pkey exceptions
> are SIGSEGV with paired with SEGV_PKUERR. So just handle
> that case and remove the now unnecessary parameters from _exception_pkey.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Looks fine to me (small query below).
Reviewed-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> clear_siginfo(&info);
> - info.si_signo = signr;
> - info.si_code = code;
> + info.si_signo = SIGSEGV;
> + info.si_code = SEGV_PKUERR;
> info.si_addr = (void __user *) addr;
> info.si_pkey = key;
>
> - force_sig_info(signr, &info, current);
> + force_sig_info(info.si_signo, &info, current);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why not just SIGSEGV?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists