On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 19:01 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Peter, feel free to ignore 1-4, but could you look at 5/5? It lacks the > test-case because I do not have a x32-ready testing machine. > > On 04/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > This series only fixes the problem. I'll send more changes to address > > some of TODO's mentioned in the changelogs later. In particular, we > > need to do something with "callw", see "Note: in 13/15. > > So, what do you all think we should do with "callw"? Jim votes for > declining to probe callw, and I fully agree. > > Any objection? > > Until then, lets cleanup the validate_insn_* paths and fix another bug. > This cleanup can also simplify the next "reject callw" change. > > Oleg. > > arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 7 +- > arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c | 126 > ++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) >
These 5 patches are: Reviewed-by: Jim Keniston <jkeni...@us.ibm.com> -- 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/
