Is the below patch acceptable in generic code, or should some arch
helper function hide it? It lets i386 / x86_64 add TIF_NOTSC
independently.
Also, what prevents this flag from being set on a running process?
If that happens the CPU state and flag could get out of sync and
this could cause problems because of the way the current code tests
the flag.
--- 2.6.18-rc1-nb.orig/fs/proc/base.c
+++ 2.6.18-rc1-nb/fs/proc/base.c
@@ -1025,6 +1025,9 @@ static ssize_t seccomp_write(struct file
if (seccomp_mode && seccomp_mode <= NR_SECCOMP_MODES) {
tsk->seccomp.mode = seccomp_mode;
set_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_SECCOMP);
+#ifdef TIF_NOTSC
+ set_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_NOTSC);
+#endif
} else
goto out;
result = -EIO;
--
Chuck
"You can't read a newspaper if you can't read." --George W. Bush
-
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]
