From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE505900086 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 06:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p3J6mBvb025530 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:48:11 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p3J6wnpG331814 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:58:49 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p3J6wl3n032746 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 03:58:49 -0300 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:15:11 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2.6.39-rc1-tip 9/26] 9: uprobes: mmap and fork hooks. Message-ID: <20110419064511.GC10698@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <20110401143223.15455.19844.sendpatchset@localhost6.localdomain6> <20110401143413.15455.75831.sendpatchset@localhost6.localdomain6> <1303144163.32491.875.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1303144163.32491.875.camel@twins> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , Linux-mm , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Christoph Hellwig , Masami Hiramatsu , Thomas Gleixner , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Oleg Nesterov , LKML , SystemTap , Jim Keniston , Roland McGrath , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton * Peter Zijlstra [2011-04-18 18:29:23]: > On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:04 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > + if (vaddr > ULONG_MAX) > > + /* > > + * We cannot have a virtual address that is > > + * greater than ULONG_MAX > > + */ > > + continue; > > I'm having trouble with those checks.. while they're not wrong they're > not correct either. Mostly the top address space is where the kernel > lives and on 32-on-64 compat the boundary is much lower still. Ideally > it'd be TASK_SIZE, but that doesn't work since it assumes you're testing > for the current task. > Guess I can use TASK_SIZE_OF(tsk) instead of ULONG_MAX ? I think TASK_SIZE_OF handles 32-on-64 correctly. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org