On Mon 23-05-16 15:29:21, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2016 15:05:38 +0200 > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon 23-05-16 14:43:19, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 May 2016 13:16:30 +0200 > > [...] > > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c > > > > index 791a4146052c..41913fac14e4 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c > > > > +++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c > > > > @@ -248,6 +248,7 @@ static noinline void do_sigsegv(struct pt_regs *regs, int si_code) > > > > si.si_signo = SIGSEGV; > > > > si.si_code = si_code; > > > > si.si_addr = (void __user *)(regs->int_parm_long & __FAIL_ADDR_MASK); > > > > + si.si_errno = 0; > > > > force_sig_info(SIGSEGV, &si, current); > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > The other for place where s390 calls force_sig_info are correct. > > > Only do_sigsegv misses the clear of si_errno. > > > > I can send a full patch with the proper changelog but I am really > > wondering whether we can plug this in a more systematic way. If you > > prefer a small s390 specific I will do it right away though. Same > > applies to x86 one. > > Why not fix the bug with a small patch and then provide the "big" > solution? A potential information leak is not good .. Fair enough. Will send two patches for the places which do not do the proper initialization. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
