From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:06:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:06:15 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:64272 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:06:06 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: current->addr_limit Date: 31 Oct 2001 11:06:28 -0800 Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Message-ID: <9rpi3k$6hq$1@cesium.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: <20011031143159.0bdc0981.vdinh@irisa.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Disclaimer: Not speaking for Transmeta in any way, shape, or form. Copyright: Copyright 2001 H. Peter Anvin - All Rights Reserved Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Followup to: <20011031143159.0bdc0981.vdinh@irisa.fr> By author: DINH Viet Hoa In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > When changing current->addr_limit through the macros > get_fs() and set_fs() in the kernel or in a kernel thread, > do we need to lock anything to prevent anything else > from accessing our custom value of current->addr_limit ? > No, the currently running process owns "current". -hpa -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt