[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