[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110305212051.GA9937@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:20:51 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, pageexec@...email.hu,
Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
Eugene Teo <eteo@...hat.com>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] exec: unify do_execve/compat_do_execve code
On 03/05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ok, everything looks fine to me.
>
> Except looking at this, I don't think this part:
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > struct user_arg_ptr {
> > - const char __user *const __user *native;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > + bool is_compat;
> > +#endif
> > + union {
> > + const char __user *const __user *native;
> > + compat_uptr_t __user *compat;
> > + } ptr;
> > };
>
> will necessarily even compile on an architecture that doesn't have any
> 'compat' support.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, now this is a really good point.
> Do we even define 'compat_uptr_t' for that case? I don't think so.
Indeed, you are right.
What I was thinking about? I do not know.
> So I suspect you need two of those annoying #ifdef's.
please expect v5 tomorrow.
Oleg.
--
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