From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754086AbeAQRjw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:39:52 -0500
Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44860 "EHLO
        foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753225AbeAQRju (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:39:50 -0500
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:39:44 +0000
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@codeaurora.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] signal/arm64: Document conflicts with SI_USER and
 SIGFPE, SIGTRAP, SIGBUS
Message-ID: <20180117173944.GK22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <87373b6ghs.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20180112005940.23279-7-ebiederm@xmission.com>
 <20180115163028.GU22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <87h8rnox3c.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20180117171729.GJ22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <87h8rkflft.fsf@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87h8rkflft.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:24:06AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> writes:

[...]

> > Should si_code simply be ignored for the SIGKILL case?
> 
> I know what x86 does in a similar case is it uses force_sig instead of
> force_sig_info.  Then the generic code gets to worry about 
> 
> If the appropriate paths generic paths get to worry about what siginfo
> to fill in in that case.  Which for SI_KERNEL is zero for everything
> except the si_code and the si_signo.
> 
> That seems perfectly reasonable.

OK, I'll go with SI_KERNEL then.

Cheers
---Dave