Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 22:42 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
>> Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 20:05 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
I think that using host addresses in __put_user and __get_user is not
logical. They should use target addresses as get
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 22:42 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 20:05 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> >> I think that using host addresses in __put_user and __get_user is not
> >> logical. They should use target addresses as get_user and put_user. As
>
Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 20:05 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
>> I think that using host addresses in __put_user and __get_user is not
>> logical. They should use target addresses as get_user and put_user. As
>> Paul said, It is not worth mixing get/put/copy and lock/unlock fun
Uhhh, I'm quite uncomfortable now. After sending the emails describing
how everything should be done I realized that I had never reworked my
base patches. All my higher-level patches are sound, but I never
reworked my {get,put}_user() and copy_{to,from}_user() patches to follow
the same pattern.
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 20:05 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> I think that using host addresses in __put_user and __get_user is not
> logical. They should use target addresses as get_user and put_user. As
> Paul said, It is not worth mixing get/put/copy and lock/unlock functions.
Please see the "RF
I think that using host addresses in __put_user and __get_user is not
logical. They should use target addresses as get_user and put_user. As
Paul said, It is not worth mixing get/put/copy and lock/unlock functions.
The ultimate goal of such cleanup is not only to generate -EFAULT
correctly but als
Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 16:44 -0600, Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
> > This patch updates get_user() and put_user() to take a third argument of
> > data type. get_user() and put_user() use target address which are
> > target_ulong and don't reflect the data type pointed to in ta
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 16:44 -0600, Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
> This patch updates get_user() and put_user() to take a third argument of
> data type. get_user() and put_user() use target address which are
> target_ulong and don't reflect the data type pointed to in target
> memory.
>
> Simply castin
These three efault patches are the basis for another 30 patches which do
the following:
* Correct compiler warnings.
* Add coding consistency.
* Detect error cases and handle them properly.
* Divide syscall.c to closer resemble the Linux kernel for code
partitioning and organization.
* Add new fea
This patch updates get_user() and put_user() to take a third argument of
data type. get_user() and put_user() use target address which are
target_ulong and don't reflect the data type pointed to in target
memory.
Simply casting the target_ulong to a type before passing to
get/put_user() is poor b
This patch is a minor update to __get_user() and __put_user() to
emphasize that they take host points.
Index: qemu/linux-user/qemu.h
===
--- qemu.orig/linux-user/qemu.h 2007-10-31 11:03:03.0 -0600
+++ qemu/linux-user/qemu.h 200
11 matches
Mail list logo
