[REVIEW][PATCHv2 03/26] signal/arm64: Use force_sig not force_sig_fault for SIGKILL

[Eric W. Biederman]

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

> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 05:36:41PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:20PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Will Deacon <will.deacon at 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 at 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.
>> >
>> > Okey doke, it would just be nice to see this patch land in 5.2, that's
>> > all.
>> 
>> As this does not appear to have any real world consequences I am aiming
>> at 5.3.  If someone else would like to take it and feed it to Linus
>> sooner I won't object.
>
> Thanks. I've picked this patch up as part of the arm64 fixes I plan to send
> for -rc3.

Sounds good.

We might have a trivial conflict between our branches as I am also
including this in my for-next branch, as I have further patches that go
on to remove the task argument from force_sig and force_sig_fault.

But I don't think it is anything to worry about.

Eric