On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 16:49 +1100, Ryan Mallon wrote: > It doesn't matter what the value of kptr_restrict happens to be, the > code is still broken. So, with your patch, values 0 and 2 of > kptr_restrict will print a seemingly correct value, but when > kptr_restrict is 1 then it will print 'pK-error'. I think it's _wrong_ to break existing code. And no, 0 and 2 will print "correct" values. Only the relatively uncommon 1 use case is broken. kptr_restrict is simply broken relative to interrupts. %pK is used outside of seq and goes to dmesg too btw. You can't simply check the process permissions at open. > It should print 'pK-error' in all cases, so that any bugs where %pK is > being used from interrupt content are identified regardless of the > setting of kptr_restrict. > > Anyway, with the approach that Eric and George suggested, this would > become a non-issue. So probably just best to leave the code as is. Or do as I did and shrink it and make it clearer until your use cases might be implemented. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
