On 8/29/05, Jesper Juhl <[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday 29 August 2005 20:21, Chris Zankel wrote:
> Thanks for the patches. I'll take a look at the entry.S one and will
> pass it along to Andres, and will incorporate the signal.c patch.
Following up on an old mail...
verify_area() is still alive on xtensa in 2.6.17-rc3-git13 :-(
Do you have any plans to get rid of it? Are the original patches I
send still useful? Should I create new patches?
It would be nice to finally be rid of that function across the board.
Xtensa is the only user left and verify_area() comletely relaces it,
so let's get rid of the cruft - no?
I was originally planning to submit a single patch that removes
verify_area across the board, but I guess it might be easier if I just
hand you the bit of the patch that handles xtensa (instead of waiting for
those bits to hit -mm) and then submit the rest along with a note that
similar patches for xtensa will arrive later via you.
So, here's the final bit that removes verify_area completely from xtensa :
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
diff -upr -X ./linux-2.6.13/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.13-orig/include/asm-xtensa/checksum.h linux-2.6.13/include/asm-xtensa/checksum.h
--- linux-2.6.13-orig/include/asm-xtensa/checksum.h 2005-08-29 01:41:01.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.13/include/asm-xtensa/checksum.h 2005-08-29 03:46:34.000000000 +0200
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ asmlinkage unsigned int csum_partial_cop
* passed in an incorrect kernel address to one of these functions.
* If you use these functions directly please don't forget the
- * verify_area().
+ * access_ok().
unsigned int csum_partial_copy_nocheck ( const char *src, char *dst,
diff -upr -X ./linux-2.6.13/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.13-orig/include/asm-xtensa/uaccess.h linux-2.6.13/include/asm-xtensa/uaccess.h
--- linux-2.6.13-orig/include/asm-xtensa/uaccess.h 2005-08-29 01:41:01.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.13/include/asm-xtensa/uaccess.h 2005-08-29 03:47:18.000000000 +0200
@@ -154,35 +154,6 @@
- * verify_area determines whether a memory access is allowed. It's
- * mostly an unnecessary wrapper for access_ok, but we provide it as a
- * duplicate of the verify_area() C inline function below. See the
- * equivalent C version below for clarity.
- * On error, verify_area branches to a label indicated by parameter
- * <error>. This implies that the macro falls through to the next
- * instruction on success.
- * Note that we assume success is the common case, and we optimize the
- * branch fall-through case on success.
- * On Entry:
- * <aa> register containing memory address
- * <as> register containing memory size
- * <at> temp register
- * <error> label to branch to on error; implies fall-through
- * macro on success
- * On Exit:
- * <aa> preserved
- * <as> preserved
- * <at> destroyed
- .macro verify_area aa, as, at, sp, error
- access_ok \at, \aa, \as, \sp, \error
#else /* __ASSEMBLY__ not defined */
@@ -211,11 +182,6 @@
#define __access_ok(addr,size) (__kernel_ok || __user_ok((addr),(size)))
#define access_ok(type,addr,size) __access_ok((unsigned long)(addr),(size))
-extern inline int verify_area(int type, const void * addr, unsigned long size)
- return access_ok(type,addr,size) ? 0 : -EFAULT;
* These are the main single-value transfer routines. They
* automatically use the right size if we just have the right pointer
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
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]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]