On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 06:48:56PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 02:25:23PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > My s390 assembly is not particularly good so I have read the history
> > of the reference to do_exit copy_thread and have been able to
> > verify that do_exit is not used.
> >
> > The general argument is that s390 has been changed to use the generic
> > kernel_thread and kernel_execve and the generic versions do not call
> > do_exit. So it is strange to see a do_exit reference sitting there.
> >
> > The history of the do_exit reference in s390's version of copy_thread
> > seems conclusive that the do_exit reference is something that lingers
> > and should have been removed several years ago.
> ...
> > Remove this dead reference to do_exit to make it clear that s390 is
> > not doing anything with do_exit in copy_thread.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/s390/kernel/process.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> Applied to s390 tree. Just in case you want to apply this to your tree too:
> Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
FWIW, this
frame->childregs.psw.addr =
(unsigned long)__ret_from_fork;
is also pointless. We do want psw.mask (if nothing else, __ret_from_fork()
that is called by ret_from_fork() will, in effect, check user_mode(task_pt_regs()).
But psw.addr is, AFAICS, pointless - the only way the callback is allowed to
return is after successful kernel_execve(), which would set psw.addr; moreover,
psw.addr is meaningless until that happens.
