On 03/05, Paul Mundt wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:18:54AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 03/02, John Reiser wrote: > > > Paul Mundt has commented on setup_rt_frame() and provided a patch which > > > bullet-proofs that area. I will include that patch into the next > > > revision. > > > > Confused. I still think his patch incomplete. Don't we need the same check > > in setup_rt_frame() ? > > > Yes, you're right. The patch is missing the proper restorer logic in the > setup_rt_frame() case. This should handle both of them, restoring the > previous logic when the VDSO is disabled. > > Signed-off-by: Paul Mundt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > > arch/i386/kernel/signal.c | 15 +++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/signal.c b/arch/i386/kernel/signal.c > index 4f99e87..26c2497 100644 > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/signal.c > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/signal.c > @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ static int setup_frame(int sig, struct k_sigaction *ka, > goto give_sigsegv; > } > > - if (current->binfmt->hasvdso) > + if (current->binfmt->hasvdso && current->mm->context.vdso)
I think this is correct, but a bit strange. The "->context.vdso != NULL" check relies on the fact that .vdso == NULL after mm_alloc (because arch_setup_additional_pages() doesn' initialize it when vdso_enabled == 0, and it has to be != NULL otherwise). This means that binfmt->hasvdso in essence is not used, at least for i386. Isn't it better to kill ->hasvdso and just use ->context.vdso ? Every usage of ->hasvdso should also check ->context.vdso anyway. Oleg. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
