Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1

[Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>]

> > > Not really (though the clarity and reassurance of the additional
> > > MAX_SWAPFILES test is good).  We went over it a year or two back,
> > > and the macro contortions do involve MAX_SWAPFILES_SHIFT: which
> > > up to and including 2.6.17 has enforced the MAX_SWAPFILES limit.
> >
> > It looks though as if the testers were able to define more than 32 swap 
> > devices. So there is the danger of overwriting the memory 
> > following the swap info if we do not fix this.
> >
> > Where are the macro contortions? No arch uses MAX_SWAPFILES_SHIFT for its 
> > definitions and the only other significant use is in swapops.h to 
> > determine the shift.
>
>
> I'll go mad if I try to work it out again: I was as worried as you
> when I discovered that test in sys_swapon a year or so ago, apparently
> without any check on MAX_SWAPFILES; and went moaning to Andrew.  But
> once I'd worked through swp_type, pte_to_swp_entry, swp_entry_to_pte,
> swp_entry, I did come to the conclusion that the MAX_SWAPFILES bound
> was actually safely built in there.

If it's that difficult to figure out, is that not reason enough to rip
it all out and replace it? ;-) Life seems quite complicated enough as
it is.

M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/