From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757493Ab2D0Xck (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:32:40 -0400
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:51605 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757409Ab2D0Xci (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:32:38 -0400
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:32:35 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such
Message-ID: <20120427233235.GQ6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20120423180150.GA6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20120424072617.GB6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20120426183742.GA324@redhat.com>
 <20120426231942.GJ6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20120427172444.GA30267@redhat.com>
 <20120427184528.GL6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20120427202002.8ED632C0BF@topped-with-meat.com>
 <20120427211244.GO6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20120427212729.652542C0AF@topped-with-meat.com>
 <20120427231526.GP6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120427231526.GP6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:15:26AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> I think all such architectures need that check lifted to do_notify_resume()
> (and the rest needs it killed, of course).  Including x86, by the look
> of it - we _probably_ can't get there with TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME and
> !user_mode(regs), but I'm not entirely sure of that.  arm is in about the
> same situation; alpha, ppc{32,64}, sparc{32,64} and m68k really can't get
> there like that (they all check it in the asm glue).  mips probably might,
> unless I'm misreading their ret_from_fork()...  Fun.

	Speaking of user_mode() oddities - may I politely inquire what had
been smoked to inspire this (in arch/s390/kernel/signal.c):
        /* This is the legacy signal stack switching. */
        else if (!user_mode(regs) &&
                 !(ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_RESTORER) &&
                 ka->sa.sa_restorer) {
                sp = (unsigned long) ka->sa.sa_restorer;
        }
especially when all paths leading to that come through do_signal() that does
        if (!user_mode(regs))
                return;
on the same regs.  It had been like that since 2.3.99pre8 when s390 went
into the tree...  It looks vaguely similar to i386
                        /* This is the legacy signal stack switching. */
                        if ((regs->ss & 0xffff) != __USER_DS &&
                                !(ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_RESTORER) &&
                                        ka->sa.sa_restorer)
                                sp = (unsigned long) ka->sa.sa_restorer;
but there the code is at least not unreachable...