On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Well the patch is right, in the context of the regression I introduced
> (and so it should probably go into 2.6.23).
Yeah, it probably is fine for -stable.
And if mine (which actually changes behaviour, in that it makes ptrace get
an access error) causes regressions, I guess we'll have to use that
compatible-with-old-behaviour one for 2.6.24 too.
But I just rebooted and tested - the cleaned-up patch does seem to work
fine, and I get "Cannot access memory at address <xyz>" rather than any
reported problem.
So I think I'll commit my version asap, and see if anybody reports that
they have a situation where they use ptrace() and expect zero back from a
shared mapping past the end.. And if there are issues, we can switch back
to the old broken behaviour with your patch,
Linus
-
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]
