On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:54:44PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/05, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > - 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
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.
> >
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
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.
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
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:54:44PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/05, Paul Mundt wrote:
- 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
On 03/02, John Reiser wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Still, I don't understand why we don't pass NEW_AUX_ENT(AT_SYSINFO) when
> > vdso_enabled == 0. We don't need linux-gate.so to use __kernel_vsyscall,
> > we have FIX_VDSO. In that case we should s/PAGE_KERNEL_RO/PAGE_READONLY/
> > of
On 03/02, John Reiser wrote:
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Still, I don't understand why we don't pass NEW_AUX_ENT(AT_SYSINFO) when
vdso_enabled == 0. We don't need linux-gate.so to use __kernel_vsyscall,
we have FIX_VDSO. In that case we should s/PAGE_KERNEL_RO/PAGE_READONLY/
of course. I
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> John Reiser wrote:
>
>>The value of ->sysenter_return is interpreted in user space by the
>>sysexit instruction; nobody else cares what the value is. The kernel
>>is not required to provide a good value when vdso_enabled is zero,
>>because the kernel has not told the
On 03/02, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> John Reiser wrote:
> > The value of ->sysenter_return is interpreted in user space by the
> > sysexit instruction; nobody else cares what the value is. The kernel
> > is not required to provide a good value when vdso_enabled is zero,
> > because the kernel has
John Reiser wrote:
> The value of ->sysenter_return is interpreted in user space by the
> sysexit instruction; nobody else cares what the value is. The kernel
> is not required to provide a good value when vdso_enabled is zero,
> because the kernel has not told the process that sysenter is valid
On 03/02, John Reiser wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > John Reiser wrote:
>
> >>+ switch (vdso_enabled) {
> >>+ case 0: /* none */
> >>+ return 0;
> >
> >
> > This means we don't initialize mm->context.vdso and ->sysenter_return.
> >
> > Is it ok? For example,
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Still, I don't understand why we don't pass NEW_AUX_ENT(AT_SYSINFO) when
> vdso_enabled == 0. We don't need linux-gate.so to use __kernel_vsyscall,
> we have FIX_VDSO. In that case we should s/PAGE_KERNEL_RO/PAGE_READONLY/
> of course. I guess the reason is some magic in
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> John Reiser wrote:
>>+ switch (vdso_enabled) {
>>+ case 0: /* none */
>>+ return 0;
>
>
> This means we don't initialize mm->context.vdso and ->sysenter_return.
>
> Is it ok? For example, setup_rt_frame() uses VDSO_SYM(&__kernel_rt_sigreturn),
>
On 03/02, Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:52:07PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -105,10 +107,25 @@ int arch_setup_additional_pages(struct l
> > > {
> > > struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> > > unsigned long addr;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > int ret;
>
On 03/02, Paul Mundt wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:52:07PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
@@ -105,10 +107,25 @@ int arch_setup_additional_pages(struct l
{
struct mm_struct *mm = current-mm;
unsigned long addr;
+ unsigned long flags;
int ret;
+ switch
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
John Reiser wrote:
+ switch (vdso_enabled) {
+ case 0: /* none */
+ return 0;
This means we don't initialize mm-context.vdso and -sysenter_return.
Is it ok? For example, setup_rt_frame() uses VDSO_SYM(__kernel_rt_sigreturn),
sysenter_past_esp
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Still, I don't understand why we don't pass NEW_AUX_ENT(AT_SYSINFO) when
vdso_enabled == 0. We don't need linux-gate.so to use __kernel_vsyscall,
we have FIX_VDSO. In that case we should s/PAGE_KERNEL_RO/PAGE_READONLY/
of course. I guess the reason is some magic in glibc.
On 03/02, John Reiser wrote:
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
John Reiser wrote:
+ switch (vdso_enabled) {
+ case 0: /* none */
+ return 0;
This means we don't initialize mm-context.vdso and -sysenter_return.
Is it ok? For example, setup_rt_frame() uses
John Reiser wrote:
The value of -sysenter_return is interpreted in user space by the
sysexit instruction; nobody else cares what the value is. The kernel
is not required to provide a good value when vdso_enabled is zero,
because the kernel has not told the process that sysenter is valid
(by
On 03/02, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
John Reiser wrote:
The value of -sysenter_return is interpreted in user space by the
sysexit instruction; nobody else cares what the value is. The kernel
is not required to provide a good value when vdso_enabled is zero,
because the kernel has not told the
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
John Reiser wrote:
The value of -sysenter_return is interpreted in user space by the
sysexit instruction; nobody else cares what the value is. The kernel
is not required to provide a good value when vdso_enabled is zero,
because the kernel has not told the process that
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:52:07PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c~fully-honor-vdso_enabled
> > +++ a/arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
> > #include
> > #include
> > #include
> > +#include
> > +#include
> >
> > /*
> > * Should the kernel
John Reiser wrote:
>
> --- a/arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c~fully-honor-vdso_enabled
> +++ a/arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> +#include
>
> /*
> * Should the kernel map a VDSO page into processes and pass its
> @@ -105,10
John Reiser wrote:
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c~fully-honor-vdso_enabled
+++ a/arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
#include asm/msr.h
#include asm/pgtable.h
#include asm/unistd.h
+#include asm/a.out.h
+#include asm/mman.h
/*
* Should the kernel map a VDSO page into
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:52:07PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c~fully-honor-vdso_enabled
+++ a/arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
#include asm/msr.h
#include asm/pgtable.h
#include asm/unistd.h
+#include asm/a.out.h
+#include
26 matches
Mail list logo
