[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8736l4evkn.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 15:59:20 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCHv2 03/26] signal/arm64: Use force_sig not force_sig_fault for SIGKILL
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> 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 <will.deacon@....com>
>
> 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.
The rest of my patchset this is a part of is a clean up to remove
the task pointer which is always current from all of the force_sig
calls.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists