On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't know of any problems off hand, but I would testify that there
> aren't any niggling bits there. Paranoia would suggest comparing object
> code before/after on each arch, since it should not change.
>
oh gee, it's a ton of code to review, isn't it? And it's _hard_ review :(
(reviews a bit)
h8300's arch_ptrace() does
if ((addr & 3) || addr < 0 || addr >= sizeof(struct user)) {
ok, the third comparison saved us. Lucky...
In fact most architectures seem to have copy-n-pasted that test. I guess
that going from signed to unsigned is safer than vice-versa.
Now what about frv?
case PTRACE_PEEKUSR: {
tmp = 0;
ret = -EIO;
if ((addr & 3) || addr < 0)
break;
we broke that. Maybe it doesn't matter, don't know.
So yeah, it's _probably_ OK, but I'm not sure that it would be smart to
merge it and hope. Nor would it be a good use of time to check all that
code just to fix a sparse warning.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
