Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.15 118/124] signal/parisc: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE

[Sasha Levin]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:49:25PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Hey Eric,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:20:21AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>What is the justification for backporting this and the other similar
>>>Documentation commits?
>>
>> It was flagged as a bug fixing patch by a new process we're testing, and
>> when I looked at it I thought that the commit message suggests it fixes
>> an ABI issue.
>
>Unfortunately they just reveal an ABI issue.  I believe there are some
>fixes coming but given that the issues are a decade old in many cases
>actually fixing these things must be approach with care so as not to
>create regressions.

I've removed these commits.

>>>These commits just introduce a define _FIXME with value of 0, to
>>>document that the userspace ABI was handled incorrectly long ago.
>>>
>>>These commits do not fix anything.  Thes commits do not change anything
>>>except a little how they are handled in siginfo_layout.  And I don't see
>>>the changes that introduce siginfo_layout in kernel/signal.c being
>>>backported.
>>>
>>>Further these commits don't even have a fixes tag so I am curious
>>>what is triggering them for backport.
>>
>> We're testing out a new mechanism where we train a neural network to
>> detect bug fixing patches and flag them for manual review. We're working
>> on a FAQ + more detailed information right now.
>
>The neural network did seem to pick up on something that is worth
>looking at.

Indeed, and we use review input to retrain the NN on these commits.
Thank you!

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha