tree 8f211dd50b28dcd7ba73f3e665c1fcacfbb94514
parent cc9f72e474a4da365896d0e528da324f205e8b31
author Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> 1498511777 -0500
committer Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> 1500509595 -0500

signal/mips: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE

Setting si_code to __SI_FAULT results in a userspace seeing
an si_code of 0.  This is the same si_code as SI_USER.  Posix
and common sense requires that SI_USER not be a signal specific
si_code.  As such this use of 0 for the si_code is a pretty
horribly broken ABI.

This use of of __SI_FAULT is only a decade old.  Which compared
to the other pieces of kernel code that has made this mistake
is almost yesterday.

This is probably worth fixing but I don't know mips well enough
to know what si_code to would be the proper one to use.

Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Ref: 948a34cf3988 ("[MIPS] Maintain si_code field properly for FP exceptions")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>