Use force_fatal_sig instead of calling do_exit directly.  This ensures
the ordinary signal handling path gets invoked, core dumps as
appropriate get created, and for multi-threaded processes all of the
threads are terminated not just a single thread.

When asked Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com> said [1]:
> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) asked:
>
> > Why does do_syscal_user_dispatch call do_exit(SIGSEGV) and
> > do_exit(SIGSYS) instead of force_sig(SIGSEGV) and force_sig(SIGSYS)?
> >
> > Looking at the code these cases are not expected to happen, so I would
> > be surprised if userspace depends on any particular behaviour on the
> > failure path so I think we can change this.
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> There is not really a good reason, and the use case that originated the
> feature doesn't rely on it.
>
> Unless I'm missing yet another problem and others correct me, I think
> it makes sense to change it as you described.
>
> > Is using do_exit in this way something you copied from seccomp?
>
> I'm not sure, its been a while, but I think it might be just that.  The
> first prototype of SUD was implemented as a seccomp mode.

If at some point it becomes interesting we could relax
"force_fatal_sig(SIGSEGV)" to instead say
"force_sig_fault(SIGSEGV, SEGV_MAPERR, sd->selector)".

I avoid doing that in this patch to avoid making it possible
to catch currently uncatchable signals.

Cc: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87mtr6gdvi.fsf@collabora.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211020174406.17889-14-ebiederm@xmission.comSigned-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>