Re: regression from your recent change to x86's copy_user_handle_tail()

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Did you have a test-case for this? I guess we're talking odd ftrace
>> uses or kgdb?
>
> I'm afraid not one you'd like - we've seen ftrace initialization fail for
> quite some time on our Xen kernels, but in a way only affecting
> ftrace itself. Said change converted that failure to an oops

So if you have a reproducer and can test the suggested one-liner patch
for it, I don't really are whether I personally consider your odd
test-case "sane" or not ;)

I think the __probe_kernel_write() code path is kind of odd and nasty,
but I think your point was good, and I think the one-liner makes
conceptual sense. So I don't have any problem applying that patch, and
even marking it for stable. I just want to make sure that it gets
tested on that odd (crazy) case, just to validate that there's nothing
else going on.

So I don't need some test-case for *me* to test and care about. I just
want that patch validated so that I can happily commit it with a
tested-by..

                       Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/