On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:39:35AM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> After these patches have had a chance to be reviewed I plan to merge
> >> them by my siginfo tree. If you would rather take them in the arm64
> >> tree let me know. All of the prerequisites should have been merged
> >> through Linus's tree several releases ago.
> >
> > Either way works for me. There is a trivial conflict in
> > force_signal_inject() with the arm64 for-next/core tree so I could as
> > well put them on top of this branch and send them during the 4.20
> > merging window.
>
> As long as there is a trivial conflict I would like to keep everything
> in one tree.
>
> There is a following patchset that manages to reduce the size of struct
> siginfo in the kernel that I have also posted for review. With
> everything in one tree I can make that change now, and just cross it off
> my list of things to worry about.
Fine by me:
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
The conflict will appear in -next but the resolution is simple:
diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
index 21689c6a985f,856b32aa03d8..adb0a32c1568
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
@@@ -353,12 -366,6 +368,9 @@@ void force_signal_inject(int signal, in
const char *desc;
struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
+ if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
+ return;
+
- clear_siginfo(&info);
-
switch (signal) {
case SIGILL:
desc = "undefined instruction";
--
Catalin
