Re: [PATCH 12/41] microblaze: Don't reimplement force_sigsegv()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/11, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> Instead of open coding the sequence from force_sigsegv() just call
> it. This also fixes a race because sa_handler was being modified
> without holding ->sighand->siglock.
> 
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/microblaze/kernel/signal.c |    4 +---
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/signal.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/signal.c
> index 5996711..90de06d 100644
> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -270,9 +270,7 @@ static void setup_rt_frame(int sig, struct k_sigaction *ka, siginfo_t *info,
>  	return;
>  
>  give_sigsegv:
> -	if (sig == SIGSEGV)
> -		ka->sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
> -	force_sig(SIGSEGV, current);
> +	force_sigsegv(sig, current);
>  }

This and the next patch seem to have the same problems with the
changelogs as 18 and 19.

13-14 looks correct to me...

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/