On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Patch looks fine to me. > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Note: I'm a bit nervious to add "linux/types.h" and use u32 and u64 > > in thread_info.h, when there's a #ifdef __KERNEL__ just below that. > > Not sure what that is there for. > > Hmm. I'd not expect user-mode headers to ever include > <linux/thread-info.h>, and if they do, they'd already get get totally > invalid namespace pollution ("struct restart_block" at a minimum) along > with stuff that simply isn't sensible in user-space at all, so I think > this part is fine. > > And I guess somebody will scream if it bites them ;) > > Anyway, my gut feel is that this is potentially a real problem, and we > should fix it asap (ie it should go into 2.6.24 even at this late stage in > the game), but it would be nice to know if the problem actually hit any > actual real program, and not just a test-setup. > > So here's a question for David Holmes: What caused you to actually notice > this behaviour? Can this actually be seen in real life usage? > > Anyway, at a minimum, here's an > > Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > and I suspect I should just apply it directly. Any comments from anybody > else?
Doh, yes. I completely missed that stack dependency of the pointer when I looked at the patch back then. The solution looks solid and probably we should get rid of the unnamed union member and fixup the other places which use restart_block in a similar way. Just a minor nit. Can we please use "futex" instead of "fu" ? I'm just envisioning the next union member named "ba". Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Please apply with the s/fu/futex/ change. This needs to go into stable .22/.23 as well. Thanks, tglx -- 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/