On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:34 PM Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:36:25AM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote:
diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/trap.c b/arch/um/kernel/trap.c index cced829460427..bf90e678b3d71 100644 --- a/arch/um/kernel/trap.c +++ b/arch/um/kernel/trap.c @@ -201,6 +201,12 @@ void segv_handler(int sig, struct siginfo *unused_si, struct uml_pt_regs *regs) segv(*fi, UPT_IP(regs), UPT_IS_USER(regs), regs); }
+static void segv_run_catcher(jmp_buf *catcher, void *fault_addr) +{
current->thread.fault_addr = fault_addr;UML_LONGJMP(catcher, 1);+}
/*
- We give a *copy* of the faultinfo in the regs to segv.
- This must be done, since nesting SEGVs could overwrite
@@ -219,7 +225,10 @@ unsigned long segv(struct faultinfo fi, unsigned long ip, int is_user, if (!is_user && regs) current->thread.segv_regs = container_of(regs, struct pt_regs, regs);
if (!is_user && (address >= start_vm) && (address < end_vm)) {
catcher = current->thread.fault_catcher;This and..
if (catcher && current->thread.is_running_test)segv_run_catcher(catcher, (void *) address);else if (!is_user && (address >= start_vm) && (address < end_vm)) { flush_tlb_kernel_vm(); goto out; }*not this*
I don't understand. Are you saying the previous block of code is good and this one is bad?
@@ -246,12 +255,10 @@ unsigned long segv(struct faultinfo fi, unsigned long ip, int is_user, address = 0; }
catcher = current->thread.fault_catcher; if (!err) goto out; else if (catcher != NULL) {current->thread.fault_addr = (void *) address;UML_LONGJMP(catcher, 1);
segv_run_catcher(catcher, (void *) address); } else if (current->thread.fault_addr != NULL) panic("fault_addr set but no fault catcher");But with this seems one atomic change which should be submitted separately, its just a helper. Think it would make the actual change needed easier to review, ie, your needed changes would be smaller and clearer for what you need.
Are you suggesting that I pull out the bits needed to implement abort in the next patch and squash it into this one?