On 28.10.2014 18:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 08:44:51AM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> В Пн, 27/10/2014 в 20:54 +0100, Oleg Nesterov пишет:
>
>>> +#define probe_slab_address(addr, retval) \
>>> + probe_kernel_address(addr, retval)
>>
>> probe_kernel_read() was arch-dependent on tree platforms:
>>
>> arch/blackfin/mm/maccess.c
>> arch/parisc/lib/memcpy.c
>> arch/um/kernel/maccess.c
>>
>> But now we skip these arch-dependent implementations. Is there no a problem?
>
> Nope, see the first patch, it makes probe_kernel_address use
> __probe_kernel_read().
>
Yes, probe_kernel_read() is in [1/3], but it's not the same as
__probe_kernel_read() for blackfin, for example.
It's defined as
long __weak probe_kernel_read(void *dst, const void *src, size_t size)
__attribute__((alias("__probe_kernel_read")));
But blackfin's probe_kernel_read() redefines this __weak function,
isn't it? Didn't get_freepointer_safe() use to call architecture's
probe_kernel_read() before?
I don't see how it is called now...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
