On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:30:50AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> writes: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:17:20AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 09:53:13AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> >> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> >> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 05:22:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> >> >> Peter Collingbourne <pcc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >> >> > Architectures that support address tagging, such as arm64, may want to > >> >> >> > expose fault address tag bits to the signal handler to help diagnose > >> >> >> > memory errors. However, these bits have not been previously set, > >> >> >> > and their presence may confuse unaware user applications. Therefore, > >> >> >> > introduce a SA_EXPOSE_TAGBITS flag bit in sa_flags that a signal > >> >> >> > handler may use to explicitly request that the bits are set. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The generic signal handler APIs expect to receive tagged addresses. > >> >> >> > Architectures may specify how to untag addresses in the case where > >> >> >> > SA_EXPOSE_TAGBITS is clear by defining the arch_untagged_si_addr > >> >> >> > function. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> >> > Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> >> > Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I16dd0ed2081f091fce97be0190cb8caa874c26cb > >> >> >> > --- > >> >> >> > To be applied on top of: > >> >> >> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace.git signal-for-v5.11 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I have merged this first patch into signal-for-v5.11 and pushed > >> >> >> everything out to linux-next. > >> >> > > >> >> > Thank you Eric. Assuming this branch won't be rebased, I'll apply the > >> >> > arm64 changes on top (well, if you rebase it, just let me know so that > >> >> > we don't end up with duplicate commits in mainline). > >> >> > >> >> No. I won't be rebasing it. Not unless something serious problem shows > >> >> up, and at that point I will be more likely to apply a corrective change > >> >> on top that you can also grab. > >> > > >> > Thanks Eric. During the merging window, I'll probably wait for you to > >> > send the pull request first just to keep the arm64 diffstat simpler. > >> > > >> > BTW, did you mean to base them on v5.10-rc3-391-g9cfd9c45994b or just > >> > v5.10-rc3? It doesn't matter much as I'll generate the diffstat manually > >> > anyway in my pull request as I have different bases in other branches. > >> > >> Crap. How did that happen? I thought for certain I had based them on > >> v5.10-rc3. Some random git commit is not a good base. I think the > >> better part of valor is to just admit I goofed and not rebase even now. > >> > >> It it would make your life easier I will be happy to rebase (onto > >> v5.10-rc3?). I just wanted to get these into my tree so that we could > >> incremetnally commit to the changes that makes sense and be certain not > >> to loose them. > > > > Please rebase onto -rc3 if there's not much hassle. > > Done. Thanks. -- Catalin
