On 2024/9/13 02:51, Richard Weinberger wrote: > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >> Von: "Tiwei Bie" <[email protected]> >> An: "richard" <[email protected]>, "anton ivanov" >> <[email protected]>, "Johannes Berg" >> <[email protected]> >> CC: "linux-um" <[email protected]>, "linux-kernel" >> <[email protected]>, "Tiwei Bie" >> <[email protected]> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. August 2024 15:51:40 >> Betreff: [PATCH] um: Fix the return value of elf_core_copy_task_fpregs > >> This function is expected to return a boolean value, which should be >> true on success and false on failure. >> >> Fixes: d1254b12c93e ("uml: fix x86_64 core dump crash") >> Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <[email protected]> >> --- >> arch/um/kernel/process.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/process.c b/arch/um/kernel/process.c >> index be2856af6d4c..3cc2b663aa78 100644 >> --- a/arch/um/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/um/kernel/process.c >> @@ -291,7 +291,8 @@ unsigned long __get_wchan(struct task_struct *p) >> int elf_core_copy_task_fpregs(struct task_struct *t, elf_fpregset_t *fpu) >> { >> int cpu = current_thread_info()->cpu; >> + int pid = userspace_pid[cpu]; >> >> - return save_i387_registers(userspace_pid[cpu], (unsigned long *) fpu); >> + return save_i387_registers(pid, (unsigned long *) fpu) == 0; > > Why a new local variable?
Thanks for the review! The new variable isn't necessary for the fix. Will drop it to make the fix more straightforward. Regards, Tiwei
