From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753546AbeCQRVV (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:21:21 -0400 Received: from isilmar-4.linta.de ([136.243.71.142]:35086 "EHLO isilmar-4.linta.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752772AbeCQRVL (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:21:11 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:44:07 +0100 From: Dominik Brodowski To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, luto@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/36] kernel: use kernel_wait4() instead of sys_wait4() Message-ID: <20180317164407.GB1619@light.dominikbrodowski.net> References: <20180315190529.20943-1-linux@dominikbrodowski.net> <20180315190529.20943-3-linux@dominikbrodowski.net> <20180316165831.GV4449@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180316165831.GV4449@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:58:31PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:04:55PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/umh.c b/kernel/umh.c > > index 18e5fa4b0e71..f4b557cadf08 100644 > > --- a/kernel/umh.c > > +++ b/kernel/umh.c > > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static void call_usermodehelper_exec_sync(struct subprocess_info *sub_info) > > * > > * Thus the __user pointer cast is valid here. > > */ > > - sys_wait4(pid, (int __user *)&ret, 0, NULL); > > + kernel_wait4(pid, (int __user *)&ret, 0, NULL); > > > > /* > > * If ret is 0, either call_usermodehelper_exec_async failed and > > There is also a reference to sys_wait4() usage on umh.c: > > /* If SIGCLD is ignored sys_wait4 won't populate the status. */ > kernel_sigaction(SIGCHLD, SIG_DFL); > > Does that remain true for kernel_wait4()? If so that comment should be updated > as well. Thanks, have updated the comment. Dominik