On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 12:24:01PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> Lines: 16
>
> > And we'll need to actually *be* in-atomic. That means we need an
> > open-coded inc_preempt_count() and dec_preempt_count() in there and I don't
> > see them.
> >
>
> ..
>
> > Why is VM_LOCKED being set? (It needs a comment).
> >
> > Where does it get unset?
>
>
> if this is an attempt to make the copy_in_atomic to be atomic, then it
> is a bug; the user can unset this bit after all via mprotect, even from
> another thread, and concurrently. U
You are right, the purpose was to make copy_to_user_inatomic() to suceed. I
need to look at this issue again. Any suggestions?
Thanks
Prasanna
--
Prasanna S Panchamukhi
Linux Technology Center
India Software Labs, IBM Bangalore
Email: [email protected]
Ph: 91-80-51776329
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]