On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 01:41:01PM +, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 03/13/2014 07:20 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:28PM +, Christopher Covington wrote:
> >> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
> >> * Returns 1 if the range is
Hi Catalin, Will,
Thanks for your feedback. I must admit I'm out of my depth here, so I just
posted what I had, hoping to solicit comments like what you all have kindly
provided.
On 03/13/2014 07:20 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:28PM +, Christopher Covington
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:28PM +, Christopher Covington wrote:
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -66,12 +66,12 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
> #define segment_eq(a,b) ((a) == (b))
>
> /*
> - * Return 1 if addr <
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:28PM +, Christopher Covington wrote:
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -66,12 +66,12 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
#define segment_eq(a,b) ((a) == (b))
/*
- * Return 1 if addr
Hi Catalin, Will,
Thanks for your feedback. I must admit I'm out of my depth here, so I just
posted what I had, hoping to solicit comments like what you all have kindly
provided.
On 03/13/2014 07:20 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:28PM +, Christopher Covington
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 01:41:01PM +, Christopher Covington wrote:
On 03/13/2014 07:20 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:28PM +, Christopher Covington wrote:
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
* Returns 1 if the range is valid, 0
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comments.
On 03/06/2014 03:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:41:28PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> Without this, the following scenario is incorrectly determined
>> to be invalid.
>>
>> addr 0x7f_e000 size 8192 addr_limit
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comments.
On 03/06/2014 03:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:41:28PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
Without this, the following scenario is incorrectly determined
to be invalid.
addr 0x7f_e000 size 8192 addr_limit 0x80_
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:20:23AM +, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:41:28PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > Without this, the following scenario is incorrectly determined
> > to be invalid.
> >
> > addr 0x7f_e000 size 8192 addr_limit 0x80_
> >
> >
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:41:28PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Without this, the following scenario is incorrectly determined
> to be invalid.
>
> addr 0x7f_e000 size 8192 addr_limit 0x80_
>
> This behavior was observed while trying to vmsplice the stack
> as part of a CRIU
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:41:28PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
Without this, the following scenario is incorrectly determined
to be invalid.
addr 0x7f_e000 size 8192 addr_limit 0x80_
This behavior was observed while trying to vmsplice the stack
as part of a CRIU dump
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:20:23AM +, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:41:28PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
Without this, the following scenario is incorrectly determined
to be invalid.
addr 0x7f_e000 size 8192 addr_limit 0x80_
This
Without this, the following scenario is incorrectly determined
to be invalid.
addr 0x7f_e000 size 8192 addr_limit 0x80_
This behavior was observed while trying to vmsplice the stack
as part of a CRIU dump of a process.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington
---
Without this, the following scenario is incorrectly determined
to be invalid.
addr 0x7f_e000 size 8192 addr_limit 0x80_
This behavior was observed while trying to vmsplice the stack
as part of a CRIU dump of a process.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
