[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrW=qxgd3UpimGFCjHLVb1sgRjqOE1KNps=CT4cmVo7B_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:25:53 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/vdso: set vdso pointer only after success
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> Those pointers were initialized before call to _install_special_mapping
> after the commit f7b6eb3fa072 ("x86: Set context.vdso before installing
> the mapping"). This is not required anymore as special mappings have
> their vma name and don't use arch_vma_name() after commit a62c34bd2a8a
> ("x86, mm: Improve _install_special_mapping and fix x86 vdso naming").
> So, this way to init looks less entangled.
> I even belive, we can remove null initializers:
> - on failure load_elf_binary() will not start a new thread;
> - arch_prctl will have the same pointers as before syscall.
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists