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

[Will Deacon]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 05:36:41PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:20PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > 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.

Will