[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52D55C46.6010701@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:48:22 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip
tree
On 01/14/2014 07:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>> I am *guessing* that m68k is has get_fs() == KERNEL_DS at the point that
>>> futex_init() is called. This would seem a bit of a peculiarity to m68k,
>>> and as such it would seem like it would be better for it to belong in
>>> the m68k-specific code, but since futex_init() is init code and only
>>> called once anyway it shouldn't cause any harm...
>>
>> Yes it does. So when getting the exception on 68030, we notice it's a kernel
>> space access error, not a user space access error, and crash.
>
> Is there a good reason m68k works like this? That is, shouldn't we fix
> the arch code instead of littering the generic code with weirdness like
> this?
>
Given that futex_init is called from initcall, this seems *really* weird
on the part of m68k. I agree this should be fixed where the problem sits.
-hpa
--
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