From ea1b75cf9138003eee6389b70e654f5865728525 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Eric W. Biederman" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:16:17 -0500 Subject: signal/mips: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE Setting si_code to __SI_FAULT results in a userspace seeing an si_code of 0. This is the same si_code as SI_USER. Posix and common sense requires that SI_USER not be a signal specific si_code. As such this use of 0 for the si_code is a pretty horribly broken ABI. This use of of __SI_FAULT is only a decade old. Which compared to the other pieces of kernel code that has made this mistake is almost yesterday. This is probably worth fixing but I don't know mips well enough to know what si_code to would be the proper one to use. Cc: Ralf Baechle Ref: 948a34cf3988 ("[MIPS] Maintain si_code field properly for FP exceptions") Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" --- arch/mips/kernel/traps.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'arch/mips/kernel') diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/traps.c b/arch/mips/kernel/traps.c index b68b4d0726d3..6c9cca9c5341 100644 --- a/arch/mips/kernel/traps.c +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/traps.c @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ void force_fcr31_sig(unsigned long fcr31, void __user *fault_addr, else if (fcr31 & FPU_CSR_INE_X) si.si_code = FPE_FLTRES; else - si.si_code = __SI_FAULT; + si.si_code = FPE_FIXME; force_sig_info(SIGFPE, &si, tsk); } -- cgit v1.2.3