>
>
>> 1. Is the ARM __get_user() broken?
>> 2. Could I be doing something else broken that is confusing __get_user()?
>> 3. What was/is the intent of the test? Or stated differently, why on earth
>> would cachep->name be a user address?
>
>
get_user is the standard test for bad pointers: If the pointer is bad,
then the exception handler will prevent an oops.
Could you backport the get_fs()/set_fs() calls around the get_user()
from 2.5? I assume that ARM needs it to distiguish between kernel and
user addresses.
On i386, it's possible to skip set_fs() and use __get_user() - but
that's i386 specific. For example the i386 oops code uses that.
--
Manfred
-
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 : Sat Nov 30 2002 - 22:00:21 EST