Will Deacon <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 05:36:41PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Will Deacon <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:20PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Will Deacon <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> >> > >> >> > 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
