Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:53:20 -0800 | Subject | Re: Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit |
| |
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > OK... I think I understand what's going on. We need asmlinkage_protect > in sys_clone() ;-/ For what it's worth, I really wonder if we ought to > treat that as syscall wrappers - i.e. have SYSCALL_DEFINEx on i386 add > a wrapper that would do asmlinkage_protect itself. IMO it's the same kind > of thing as argument normalization handled by syscall wrappers - we make > sure that C function plays well with what asm glue is doing and expecting.
Actually, I think we should do it *unconditionally* in the syscall wrappers.
It's up to the architecture code to make asmlinkage_protect() be a no-op or not, depending on how it does things. Right now I think only x86 actually defines it, although I suspect there might be others that should (anybody who passes arguments on the stack and also uses the stack for save-area).
But in the meantime, I guess I should just take the do_fork() one. Can I get a sign-off and a changelog?
Linus
| |