From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:45:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:45:30 -0400 Received: from csl.Stanford.EDU ([171.64.66.149]:28292 "EHLO csl.Stanford.EDU") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:45:11 -0400 From: Dawson Engler Message-Id: <200106100745.AAA20952@csl.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: [CHECKER] a couple potential deadlocks in 2.4.5-ac8 To: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "Linus Torvalds" at Jun 09, 2001 11:19:07 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Sure, it's a pretty interaction. To be sure about the rule: any *_user > > call can be treated as an implicit invocation of do_page_fault? > > As a first approximation, yes. The exception cases are certain callers > that use kernel addresses and set_fs(KERNEL_DS) in order to "fake" > arguments to system calls etc, but I doubt they should need any > special-casing. I already have to special case the set_fs calls for the user-pointer security checker. It shouldn't be too much trouble to reuse the code. Thanks for the early warning. Dawson