Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
References: <20190523003916.20726-1-ebiederm@xmission.com>
        <20190523003916.20726-4-ebiederm@xmission.com>
        <20190523101702.GG26646@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
        <875zq1gnh4.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
        <20190523161509.GE31896@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 15:59:20 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20190523161509.GE31896@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> (Will Deacon's
        message of "Thu, 23 May 2019 17:15:09 +0100")
Message-ID: <8736l4evkn.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCHv2 03/26] signal/arm64: Use force_sig not force_sig_fault for SIGKILL
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> writes:

> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:11:19AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>> index ade32046f3fe..e45d5b440fb1 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>> @@ -256,7 +256,10 @@ void arm64_force_sig_fault(int signo, int code, void __user *addr,
>>  			   const char *str)
>>  {
>>  	arm64_show_signal(signo, str);
>> -	force_sig_fault(signo, code, addr, current);
>> +	if (signo == SIGKILL)
>> +		force_sig(SIGKILL, current);
>> +	else
>> +		force_sig_fault(signo, code, addr, current);
>>  }
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>
> Are you planning to send this series on, or would you like me to pick this
> into the arm64 tree?

I am planning on taking this through siginfo tree, unless it causes
problems.

The rest of my patchset this is a part of is a clean up to remove
the task pointer which is always current from all of the force_sig
calls.

Eric