From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754377AbaAFMcT (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:32:19 -0500 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:34192 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750990AbaAFMcQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:32:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:32:07 +0000 From: Luis Henriques To: Akira Takeuchi Cc: Ben Hutchings , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Naoya Horiguchi , Kiyoshi Owada , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 056/185] mm: ensure get_unmapped_area() returns higher address than mmap_min_addr Message-ID: <20140106123207.GB2776@hercules> References: <1388723203.22017.36.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <20140106191910.7155.38390934@jp.panasonic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140106191910.7155.38390934@jp.panasonic.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:19:10PM +0900, Akira Takeuchi wrote: > On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:26:43 +0000 > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Sun, 2013-12-29 at 03:08 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > 3.2.54-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > From: Akira Takeuchi > > > > > > commit 2afc745f3e3079ab16c826be4860da2529054dd2 upstream. > > [...] > > > [bwh: Backported to 3.2: > > > As we do not have vm_unmapped_area(), make arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown() > > > calculate the lower limit for the new area's end address and then compare > > > addresses with this instead of with len. In the process, fix an off-by-one > > > error which could result in returning 0 if mm->mmap_base == len.] > > > > I'm dropping this as I have no good way to test the backport (it's not > > used on x86) and I didn't get any confirmation that it's right. > > I'm sorry for delayed reply. > > Your backport seems right. > Additionally, I've confirmed the problem is resolved by your backport patch. Sorry I'm also late for this review. I guess this means the backport I made for the 3.5 kernel (and released on 3.5.7.26) is incorrect: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=745545489d25d1b9ecf2d78a8f9a31a362806d2d Akira, could you please confirm if this is the case so that I revert it in next release? Cheers, -- Luis