On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:55:04AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:01:46AM +0400, Vladimir Murzin wrote: > > I was thinking about your suggestion. We are speaking about the same > > problem but different solutions. Let me summarize shortly why I came > > up with current solution: > > I don't think there is a problem here. I think there's just redundant > code in every arch apart from Sparc. > > > * leaving check in arches make them isolated, so > > mm->get_unmapped_area could be called safely anywhere (currently it > > is done in hugetlb and get_fb_unmapped_area stuff) > > Right. So is get_fb_unmapped_area() called without first going through > get_unmapped_area() ? As far as I can see, it isn't. Same for hugetlbfs. D'0h I've missed f_op there.. Thanks for pointing that. > > I don't think you've analysed the issue you are trying to address correctly. > As such I will *not* be giving you an ACK for your current changes to > arch/arm. I should have analysed this more carefully. By now I can see even more redundant code. Actually, for some arches test for length has already done in arch_mmap_check(). For instance, sparc32 and sparc64 do the same check in sparc_mmap_check() as in arch_get_unmapped_area(). The only one difference in return value: -EINVAL in lieu of -ENOMEM. The same case for ia64. Hmmm... What about extending generic arch_mmap_check with check (len > TASK_SIZE) and updating arches which are coping with special cases? Best wishes Vladimir Murzin -- 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
