[PATCH 07/11] signal/arm64: Document conflicts with SI_USER and SIGFPE, SIGTRAP, SIGBUS

Dave Martin Dave.Martin at arm.com
Wed Jan 17 09:39:44 PST 2018


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:24:06AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Martin <Dave.Martin at arm.com> writes:

[...]

> > Should si_code simply be ignored for the SIGKILL case?
> 
> I know what x86 does in a similar case is it uses force_sig instead of
> force_sig_info.  Then the generic code gets to worry about 
> 
> If the appropriate paths generic paths get to worry about what siginfo
> to fill in in that case.  Which for SI_KERNEL is zero for everything
> except the si_code and the si_signo.
> 
> That seems perfectly reasonable.

OK, I'll go with SI_KERNEL then.

Cheers
---Dave



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list