On Wednesday 13 February 2008 00:10, Eugene Teo wrote:
> Sorry for the repeated emails. Kindly ignore the previous resend. Please
> review this instead. Thanks. I have tested this.
If it is causing this much problems, can you split the cleanups into
their own patches.
> [PATCH 2/2] mm: various cleanups in get_user_pages()
>
> This patch contains various cleanups, including making sure vma is valid,
> and the return value of follow_hugetlb_page() is validated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eugene Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> mm/memory.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 54f951b..c7e0610 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -1003,7 +1003,9 @@ int get_user_pages(struct task_struct *tsk, struct
> mm_struct *mm, unsigned int foll_flags;
>
> vma = find_extend_vma(mm, start);
> - if (!vma && in_gate_area(tsk, start)) {
> + if (!vma)
> + goto finish_or_fault;
> + if (in_gate_area(tsk, start)) {
> unsigned long pg = start & PAGE_MASK;
> struct vm_area_struct *gate_vma = get_gate_vma(tsk);
> pgd_t *pgd;
Doesn't this break the logic?
If you don't have a vma, but you are in the gate area, then you
should use the gate vma. With your patch, gate area will fault.
> @@ -1011,7 +1013,7 @@ int get_user_pages(struct task_struct *tsk, struct
> mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd;
> pte_t *pte;
> if (write) /* user gate pages are read-only */
> - return i ? : -EFAULT;
> + goto finish_or_fault;
I don't know if this is exactly a cleanup or not... I guess gcc
probably isn't smart enough to fold them all together, so it should
use a little less code in the unlikely branches. Does it?
--
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/
