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