Re: Possible bug in do_execve()

[Sonny Rao <sonny@burdell.org>]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:09:10PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
<snip>
> > Yeah, I proposed a similar patch to Anton, and it would quiet the
> > warning on powerpc, but that's not the point.  It happens that powerpc
> > doesn't use 0 as a context id, but that may not be true on another
> > architecture.  That's really what I'm concerned about.
> 
> FWIW, ppc and cris do the NO_CONTEXT check, while others don't
> even have a arch-specific 'mm->context.id'.

Good point.  I probably stated that concern too narrowly.  Probably
what I should say is: What is the pre-condition for calling
destroy_context() ?  Is it that init_new_context() must have
succeeded?  Or is it merely that mm.context has been zeroed
out?

Here's destroy context on sparc64:

void destroy_context(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
        unsigned long flags, i;

        for (i = 0; i < MM_NUM_TSBS; i++)
                tsb_destroy_one(&mm->context.tsb_block[i]);

        spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx_alloc_lock, flags);

        if (CTX_VALID(mm->context)) {
                unsigned long nr = CTX_NRBITS(mm->context);
                mmu_context_bmap[nr>>6] &= ~(1UL << (nr & 63));
        }

        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx_alloc_lock, flags);
}

It seems to assume that mm->context is valid before doing a check.

Since I don't have a sparc64 box, I can't check to see if this
actually breaks things or not.

-
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/