[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131210233153.GQ10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:31:53 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: process 'stuck' at exit.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 03:05:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Nobody actually uses that argument any more (it goes back to the old
> i386 "let's manually verify that we have write permissions, because
> the CPU doesn't do it for us in the trap handling"), and it should
> probably be removed.
Ah...
> But you're right that it's at least misleading. I'd love to remove it
> entirely, because it's not even syntax-checked, and it's confusing.
> But that would be a humongous patch.
>
> So these days, "access_ok()" literally just checks that the address is
> in the user address space range. And that would seem to always be
> appropriate for futexes, so why not just do it in the generic code?
So let's turn it into
#define access_ok(type, addr, size) address_ok(addr, size)
and then users can be converted at leisure. Eventually we'll just remove
the unused macros...
--
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