On 7 December 2001 07:45, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> However, looking at 2.4.16/arch/i386/kernel/process.c::copy_segments()
> which generates this message it seems odd: It returns void, yet it can fail
> because it is doing a vmalloc().
>
> When the vmalloc() fails, the new_mm->context.segments is set to NULL and
> the function returns.
>
> That seems wrong, no? Shouldn't there be a panic() when the allocation
> fails at least? Or even better the function should perhaps return an error
> code?
>
> Considering there is only one caller (kernel/fork.c::copy_mm()) it would be
> easy to modify copy_mm() to handle a returned error code gracefully and
> goto fail_nomem, which would in turn result in kernel/fork.c::do_fork(),
> the only caller of copy_mm(), cleaning up properly and returning an error
> code.
I am ignorant on the subject, but why LDT is used in Linux at all?
LDT register can be set to 0, this can speed up task switch time and save
some memory used for LDT.
I see a i386 specific syscall (kernel/ldt.c:sys_modify_ldt()) and
/*
* default LDT is a single-entry callgate to lcall7 for iBCS
* and a callgate to lcall27 for Solaris/x86 binaries
*/
set_call_gate(&default_ldt[0],lcall7);
set_call_gate(&default_ldt[4],lcall27);
in kernel/traps.c:trap_init().
Is it used elsewhere?
-- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:49 EST