On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:37:58AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> 
> Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
> 
> [auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
> [also build test ERROR on v4.20-rc3]
> [cannot apply to next-20181119]
> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to 
> help improve the system]
> 
> url:    
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Christian-Brauner/proc-allow-signaling-processes-via-file-descriptors/20181120-063836
> config: riscv-tinyconfig (attached as .config)
> compiler: riscv64-linux-gcc (GCC) 8.1.0
> reproduce:
>         wget 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O 
> ~/bin/make.cross
>         chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>         GCC_VERSION=8.1.0 make.cross ARCH=riscv 
> 
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> 
>    kernel/signal.c: In function '__do_sys_procfd_signal':
> >> kernel/signal.c:3341:7: error: implicit declaration of function 
> >> 'proc_is_procfd'; did you mean 'clockid_to_fd'? 
> >> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>      if (!proc_is_procfd(f.file))
>           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On my radar and fixed. This happens when CONFIG_PROC_FS unset.

>           clockid_to_fd
>    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> 
> vim +3341 kernel/signal.c
> 
>   3314        
>   3315        /**
>   3316         *  sys_procfd_signal - send a signal to a process through a 
> process file
>   3317         *                      descriptor
>   3318         *  @fd: the file descriptor of the process
>   3319         *  @sig: signal to be sent
>   3320         *  @info: the signal info
>   3321         *  @flags: future flags to be passed
>   3322         */
>   3323        SYSCALL_DEFINE4(procfd_signal, int, fd, int, sig, siginfo_t 
> __user *, info,
>   3324                        int, flags)
>   3325        {
>   3326                int ret;
>   3327                struct pid *pid;
>   3328                kernel_siginfo_t kinfo;
>   3329                struct fd f;
>   3330        
>   3331                /* Enforce flags be set to 0 until we add an extension. 
> */
>   3332                if (flags)
>   3333                        return -EINVAL;
>   3334        
>   3335                f = fdget_raw(fd);
>   3336                if (!f.file)
>   3337                        return -EBADF;
>   3338        
>   3339                ret = -EINVAL;
>   3340                /* Is this a process file descriptor? */
> > 3341                if (!proc_is_procfd(f.file))
>   3342                        goto err;
>   3343        
>   3344                pid = f.file->private_data;
>   3345                if (!pid)
>   3346                        goto err;
>   3347        
>   3348                if (info) {
>   3349                        ret = __copy_siginfo_from_user(sig, &kinfo, 
> info);
>   3350                        if (unlikely(ret))
>   3351                                goto err;
>   3352                        /*
>   3353                         * Not even root can pretend to send signals 
> from the kernel.
>   3354                         * Nor can they impersonate a kill()/tgkill(), 
> which adds
>   3355                         * source info.
>   3356                         */
>   3357                        ret = -EPERM;
>   3358                        if ((kinfo.si_code >= 0 || kinfo.si_code == 
> SI_TKILL) &&
>   3359                            (task_pid(current) != pid))
>   3360                                goto err;
>   3361                } else {
>   3362                        prepare_kill_siginfo(sig, &kinfo);
>   3363                }
>   3364        
>   3365                ret = kill_pid_info(sig, &kinfo, pid);
>   3366        
>   3367        err:
>   3368                fdput(f);
>   3369                return ret;
>   3370        }
>   3371        
> 
> ---
> 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure                Open Source Technology Center
> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all                   Intel Corporation


Reply via email to