From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751860Ab2KOVzr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:55:47 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:56404 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751477Ab2KOVzq (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:55:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:55:29 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Michal Simek Cc: Jonas Bonn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Catalin Marinas , Haavard Skinnemoen , Mike Frysinger , Jesper Nilsson , David Howells , Tony Luck , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Hirokazu Takata , Geert Uytterhoeven , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Richard Kuo , Martin Schwidefsky , Lennox Wu , "David S. Miller" , Paul Mundt , Chris Zankel , Chris Metcalf , Yoshinori Sato , Guan Xuetao Subject: Re: new execve/kernel_thread design Message-ID: <20121115215529.GU2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20121016223508.GR2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121017160702.GY2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121017161953.GZ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:41:16PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > Here is the branch based on rc5 (information below) > and here is giweb. > http://developer.petalogix.com/git/gitweb.cgi?p=linux-2.6-microblaze.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/viro/arch-microblaze-rc5 > > I have also looked at your sys_fork / sys_vfork / sys_clone unification > and I have fixed it for Microblaze. > > Also I have done some tests on it for sure. > > I would add sys_execve/kernel_execve/kernel_thread patches to my next branch. > Are you OK with that? Umm... In principle - yes, but I've a couple of question abouts those. 1) What's that set_fs(USER_DS) in start_thread() for? Note that we do the same thing in flush_old_exec(), at the same time we remove PF_KTHREAD from current->flags. While we are at it, if we *ever* hit do_signal() with KERNEL_DS, we are very deep in trouble. set_fs(USER_DS) in setup_{rt_,}frame() is pointless. 2) your definition of current_pt_regs() is an exact copy of on in include/linux/ptrace.h; why is "microblaze: Define current_pt_regs" needed at all? IOW, I'd rather added #include to arch/microblaze/kernel/process.c instead... From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: new execve/kernel_thread design Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:55:29 +0000 Message-ID: <20121115215529.GU2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20121016223508.GR2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121017160702.GY2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121017161953.GZ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:56404 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751477Ab2KOVzq (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:55:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michal Simek Cc: Jonas Bonn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Catalin Marinas , Haavard Skinnemoen , Mike Frysinger , Jesper Nilsson , David Howells , Tony Luck , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Hirokazu Takata , Geert Uytterhoeven , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Richard Kuo , Martin Schwidefsky , Lennox Wu , "David S. Miller" , Paul Mundt , Chris Zankel , Chris Metcalf , Yoshinori Sato , Guan Xuetao On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:41:16PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > Here is the branch based on rc5 (information below) > and here is giweb. > http://developer.petalogix.com/git/gitweb.cgi?p=linux-2.6-microblaze.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/viro/arch-microblaze-rc5 > > I have also looked at your sys_fork / sys_vfork / sys_clone unification > and I have fixed it for Microblaze. > > Also I have done some tests on it for sure. > > I would add sys_execve/kernel_execve/kernel_thread patches to my next branch. > Are you OK with that? Umm... In principle - yes, but I've a couple of question abouts those. 1) What's that set_fs(USER_DS) in start_thread() for? Note that we do the same thing in flush_old_exec(), at the same time we remove PF_KTHREAD from current->flags. While we are at it, if we *ever* hit do_signal() with KERNEL_DS, we are very deep in trouble. set_fs(USER_DS) in setup_{rt_,}frame() is pointless. 2) your definition of current_pt_regs() is an exact copy of on in include/linux/ptrace.h; why is "microblaze: Define current_pt_regs" needed at all? IOW, I'd rather added #include to arch/microblaze/kernel/process.c instead...