On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:59:41AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > Well the patch is right, in the context of the regression I introduced > > (and so it should probably go into 2.6.23). > > Yeah, it probably is fine for -stable. > > And if mine (which actually changes behaviour, in that it makes ptrace get > an access error) causes regressions, I guess we'll have to use that > compatible-with-old-behaviour one for 2.6.24 too. > > But I just rebooted and tested - the cleaned-up patch does seem to work > fine, and I get "Cannot access memory at address <xyz>" rather than any > reported problem. > > So I think I'll commit my version asap, and see if anybody reports that > they have a situation where they use ptrace() and expect zero back from a > shared mapping past the end.. And if there are issues, we can switch back > to the old broken behaviour with your patch,
No that would be great. Fingers crossed it won't cause any problems. Thanks, all. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/