On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 10:50 +0100, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:03:06PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > Gabriel Paubert writes: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:52:14AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > > Joakim Tjernlund writes: > > > > > > > > > This little hack changes the kernel sys call handling in an crude > > > > > way and then it works. Apperently the kernel thinks is an error if the > > > > > syscall returns a value between -_LAST_ERRNO and -1. > > > > > > > > Try this patch and let me if it fixes it. If it does I'll push it > > > > upstream. > > > > > > With your patch, you won't get EFAULT if you pass a bad > > > address, but a constant, time independent value, unless > > > I miss something. > > > > I think you are missing something, namely that I put the call to > > force_successful_syscall_return() AFTER the return -EFAULT. > > > > Indeed, it may be time to update the syscall documentation, saying > that you need to clear errno before the syscall and check errno > and not the return value since -1 is valid.
And perhaps mention that times(NULL) never returns an error. And that times() is broken in 2.6.27 and earlier and needs the workaround posted earlier. Jocke _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
