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 S1756206AbdDEWpq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:45:46 -0400
Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:61860 "EHLO mga09.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1756148AbdDEWpi (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:45:38 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,281,1488873600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="74105303"
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/signals: Fix lower/upper bound reporting in compat
 siginfo
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
References: <1491322501-5054-1-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org>
 <82bd374d-304a-c719-94ba-ba35e7b1696d@linux.intel.com>
 <20170404215349.GT7266@8bytes.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <39df93e5-72a8-172f-866d-18d876a38d09@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:45:36 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170404215349.GT7266@8bytes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 04/04/2017 02:53 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:56:45AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 04/04/2017 09:15 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>> Put the right values from the original siginfo into the
>>> userspace compat-siginfo.
>>>
>>> This fixes the 32-bit mpx tabletest on a 64-bit kernel.
>>
>> Ugh, thanks for finding that.
> 
> Yeah, I was also looking at the vaddrexhaust test, but is that supposed
> to work? It does pretty weird things at least, on 64 bit the function
> effectivly does nothing because nr_to_fill evaluates to 0 there, and on
> 32 bit it gets a (probably #BF) exception which is not caught, so that
> the test fails.
> 
> I am a bit confused, but maybe I just didn't stare long enough at it :-)
> Hope you can sched some light on it.

That code can probably just get removed from the tests.  I haven't run
it in a while and it's probably not worth refreshing.