From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6175FC43382 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:39:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F1921533 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:39:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 05F1921533 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xmission.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727272AbeI0P5V (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:57:21 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:53396 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726931AbeI0P5U (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:57:20 -0400 Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1g5Sm1-0000i0-MF; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 03:39:53 -0600 Received: from [105.184.227.67] (helo=x220.xmission.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1g5Sm0-0006oo-H8; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 03:39:53 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <871s9j462u.fsf@xmission.com> <20180926173841.GD175719@arrakis.emea.arm.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:39:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20180926173841.GD175719@arrakis.emea.arm.com> (Catalin Marinas's message of "Wed, 26 Sep 2018 18:38:42 +0100") Message-ID: <87ftxvs2i0.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1g5Sm0-0006oo-H8;;;mid=<87ftxvs2i0.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=105.184.227.67;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19mhsuTzrR+swoaCRJ7qkJqyNxWeL/osKc= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 105.184.227.67 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/15] signal/arm64: siginfo cleanups X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Catalin Marinas writes: > Hi Eric, > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> This is the continuation of my work to sort out signaling of exceptions >> with siginfo. The old signal sending functions by taking a siginfo >> argument resulted in their callers having to deal with the fiddly nature >> of siginfo directly. In small numbers of callers this is not a problem >> but in the number of callers in the kernel this resulted in cases >> where fields were not initialized or improperly initialized before >> being passed to userspace. >> >> To avoid having to worry about those issues I have added new signal >> sending functions that each deal wit a different siginfo case. When >> using these functions there is no room for the fiddly nature of siginfo >> to cause mistakes. >> >> This is my set of changes to update arm64 to use those functions. >> Along with some refactoring so those functions can be cleanly used. >> >> Folks please review and double check me. I think I have kept these >> changes simple and obviously correct but I am human and mess up >> sometimes. > > Nice clean-up, thanks. I started reviewing the patches, I should finish > by tomorrow (I also applied them locally to give some testing). > >> After these patches have had a chance to be reviewed I plan to merge >> them by my siginfo tree. If you would rather take them in the arm64 >> tree let me know. All of the prerequisites should have been merged >> through Linus's tree several releases ago. > > Either way works for me. There is a trivial conflict in > force_signal_inject() with the arm64 for-next/core tree so I could as > well put them on top of this branch and send them during the 4.20 > merging window. As long as there is a trivial conflict I would like to keep everything in one tree. There is a following patchset that manages to reduce the size of struct siginfo in the kernel that I have also posted for review. With everything in one tree I can make that change now, and just cross it off my list of things to worry about. Eric