Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:19:01 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mpx: Correctly report do_mpx_bt_fault() failures to
 user-space
Message-ID: <20170421121901.GJ5077@suse.de>
References: <1491488362-27198-1-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org>
 <0d387d7f-208e-75aa-55ea-0157412aa4d4@linux.intel.com>
 <20170420120801.GH5077@suse.de>
 <61c36474-63a5-d080-77d8-874e8c01c626@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <61c36474-63a5-d080-77d8-874e8c01c626@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 633
Lines: 16

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:45:28AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> How about doing X86_TRAP_PF?  That would at least be consistent with
> SIGBUS, which is probably the closest thing to a generic error code that
> we have.

Correct me if I am wrong, but for SIGBUS this only happens in the
page-fault path, right? And this path is indeed entered on a #PF
exception.

I see no reason to lie to user-space about the trap_nr that caused the
SIGSEGV, especially since user-space software needs to be modified to
make use of MPX, including the signal handler. So there is no risk of
introducing any incompatibility or regression, no?


	Joerg