On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 07:38:53PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> It really only matters to debuggers but the SIGKILL does not have any
> si_codes that use the fault member of the siginfo union. Correct this
> the simple way and call force_sig instead of force_sig_fault when the
> signal is SIGKILL.
>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
> Cc: James Morse <james.mo...@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> Fixes: af40ff687bc9 ("arm64: signal: Ensure si_code is valid for all fault
> signals")
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebied...@xmission.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> index ade32046f3fe..0feb17bdcaa0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -282,6 +282,11 @@ void arm64_notify_die(const char *str, struct pt_regs
> *regs,
> current->thread.fault_address = 0;
> current->thread.fault_code = err;
>
> + if (signo == SIGKILL) {
> + arm64_show_signal(signo, str);
> + force_sig(signo, current);
> + return;
> + }
I know it's a bit of a misnomer, but I'd rather do this check inside
arm64_force_sig_fault, since I think we have other callers (e.g.
do_bad_area()) which also blindly pass in SIGKILL here.
We could rename the thing if necessary.
Will
