linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] uprobes: don't use loff

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120614052430.GA9089@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:54:30 +0530
From:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] uprobes: don't use loff_t for the valid virtual
	address

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:51:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> loff_t looks confusing when it is used for the virtual address.
> Change map_info and install_breakpoint/remove_breakpoint paths
> to use "unsigned long".
> 
> The patch doesn't change vma_address(), it can't return "long"
> because it is used to verify the mapping. But probably this
> needs some cleanups too.

Oleg,

As you mentioned in another email, this conflicts with my [1/2]
preparatory patch for the powerpc port. Do you think it just makes sense
to make the arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() prototype change to take vaddr as
part of this set itself?

I will then rebase the powerpc port when this goes into an upstream
tree.

Ananth

--
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/