[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:24:03 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk,
matthew@....cx, agruen@...e.de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
hch@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] vfs: no "(unreachable)" prefix for SYSVIPC maps in
/proc/PID/maps
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:21:49 +0200
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> Another fix for vfs-fix-d_path-for-unreachable-paths.patch in -mm.
>
Now I'm confused.
> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
>
> The patch
>
> "vfs: fix d_path() for unreachable paths"
>
> generally changed d_path() to report unreachable paths with a special
> prefix. This has an effect on /proc/${PID}/maps as well for memory
> maps set up with shmem_file_setup() or hugetlb_file_setup(). These
> functions set up unlinked files under a kernel-private vfsmount.
> Since this vfsmount is unreachable from userspace, these maps will be
> reported with the "(unreachable)" prefix.
>
> This is undesirable, because it changes the kernel ABI and might break
> applications for no good reason.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
These three patches are fixes against
vfs-fix-d_path-for-unreachable-paths.patch? The description for
seq_file-return-a-negative-error-code-when-seq_path_root-fails.patch
led me to believe that vfs-fix-d_path-for-unreachable-paths.patch was
to be dropped.
argh.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists