From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262984AbTFOW5P (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:57:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263025AbTFOW5P (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:57:15 -0400 Received: from are.twiddle.net ([64.81.246.98]:31126 "EHLO are.twiddle.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262984AbTFOW5O (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:57:14 -0400 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:11:06 -0700 From: Richard Henderson To: Linux Kernel List Subject: Re: force_successful_syscall_return() buggy? Message-ID: <20030615231106.GA14939@twiddle.net> Mail-Followup-To: Linux Kernel List References: <20030615193604.L5417@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030615193604.L5417@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 07:36:04PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > AFAIK, sys_execve() does not ensure that the kernel stack will be empty > before starting the user space thread, so these programs are running with > a slightly reduced kernel stack. Indeed. This is fixed in a rewrite I have of entry.S, but that's not particularly stable at the moment... r~