I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
# This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
#
# ChangeSet
# 2005/01/21 13:42:18-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Merge nuts.davemloft.net:/disk1/BK/sparcwork-2.6
# into nuts.davemloft.net:/disk1/BK/sparc-2.6
# # fs/binfmt_elf.c
# 2005/01/21 13:42:06-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +0 -0
# Auto merged
# # ChangeSet
# 2005/01/17 13:38:38-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # [SPARC64]: Missing user access return value checks in fs/binfmt_elf.c and fs/compat.c
# # Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# # fs/compat_ioctl.c
# 2005/01/17 13:37:56-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +12 -5
# [SPARC64]: Missing user access return value checks in fs/binfmt_elf.c and fs/compat.c
# # fs/binfmt_elf.c
# 2005/01/17 13:37:56-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +43 -19
# [SPARC64]: Missing user access return value checks in fs/binfmt_elf.c and fs/compat.c
#
I think so. For a short period we applied this patch to the Gentoo 2.6.10 kernel...
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/gentoo-dev-sources/release-10.01/dist/1900_umem_catch.patch
...but removed it once users complained it stopped kylix binaries from running.
Daniel - 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/
