On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 16:55, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not sure it matters either. You're adding all that code and > task_struct member just because the kernel sends SIGBUS on a memory > failure. Oh well. > > How is that more beneficial for the overall recovery strategy than > killing the current task? IOW, what is the real, practical advantage of > this and why do we want to support it indefinitely? I don't have a "real world" use case, we hit these two bugs in HW testing. Qemu relies on the SIGBUS logic but the execve and rseq cases cannot be recovered from, the main benefit of sending the correct signal is perhaps information to the user. If this cannot be fixed then optimally it should be documented. As for "all that code", the memory failure handling code is of certain size and this is a comparatively tiny fix for a tiny issue. Best regards
