On Fri, 2016-12-30 at 18:07 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Ricardo Neri > <ricardo.neri-calderon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-12-27 at 16:48 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> > >> >> > + if (nr_copied > 0) > >> >> > + return -EFAULT; > >> >> > >> >> This should be the only EFAULT case. > >> > Should this be EFAULT event if the caller cares only about successful > >> > (return 0) vs failed (return non-0) emulation? > >> > >> In theory this particular error would be a page fault not a general > >> protection fault (in the UMIP off case). If you were emulating it > >> extra carefully, you could change the signal accordingly. But, as I > >> said, I really doubt this matters. > > > > If simple enough and for the sake of accuracy, I could try to issue the > > page fault. It seems to me that this entitles calling > > force_sig_info_fault in this particular case as opposed to the > > force_sig_info(SIGSEGV, SEND_SIG_PRIV, tsk) that do_general_protection > > calls. > > Sure. You could even do it by sending the signal in the emulation > code and returning true. Will do. Thanks! Ricardo > > --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
