| commit | 495b59364c67bc1f970a6229895ae15d1684d694 | |
| author | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | |
| Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:49:20 +0000 (13 09:49 -0700) | ||
| committer | Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> | |
| Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:20:28 +0000 (13 13:20 -0700) | ||
| tree | 81af921fede7cedf70f7d70a50ec98d77726fb85 | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | ab832422673d1774c4ce3941f2ac87743d73bded | commitdiff |
x86: don't send SIGBUS for kernel page faults
commit 96054569190bdec375fe824e48ca1f4e3b53dd36 upstream.
It's wrong for several reasons, but the most direct one is that the
fault may be for the stack accesses to set up a previous SIGBUS. When
we have a kernel exception, the kernel exception handler does all the
fixups, not some user-level signal handler.
Even apart from the nested SIGBUS issue, it's also wrong to give out
kernel fault addresses in the signal handler info block, or to send a
SIGBUS when a system call already returns EFAULT.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
commit 96054569190bdec375fe824e48ca1f4e3b53dd36 upstream.
It's wrong for several reasons, but the most direct one is that the
fault may be for the stack accesses to set up a previous SIGBUS. When
we have a kernel exception, the kernel exception handler does all the
fixups, not some user-level signal handler.
Even apart from the nested SIGBUS issue, it's also wrong to give out
kernel fault addresses in the signal handler info block, or to send a
SIGBUS when a system call already returns EFAULT.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
| arch/x86/mm/fault.c | diffblobblamehistory |