[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120309203446.GB23244@burratino>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:34:46 -0600
From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>
Subject: Re: [ 17/68] regset: Return -EFAULT, not -EIO, on host-side memory
fault
Greg KH wrote:
> 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
>
> commit 5189fa19a4b2b4c3bec37c3a019d446148827717 upstream.
>
> There is only one error code to return for a bad user-space buffer
> pointer passed to a system call in the same address space as the
> system call is executed, and that is EFAULT.
I don't think this has the potential to cause regressions, and it
certainly makes things saner, so from that point of view it looks
good. But I am still wondering how it matches the following
criterion:
- It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
critical.
Can someone enlighten me?
Part of the reason I am asking is to figure out whether the patch
ought to be applied to 2.6.32.y, too.
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
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