Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:52:20 -0700 | Subject | Re: regression from your recent change to x86's copy_user_handle_tail() | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote: >> >> Did you have a test-case for this? I guess we're talking odd ftrace >> uses or kgdb? > > I'm afraid not one you'd like - we've seen ftrace initialization fail for > quite some time on our Xen kernels, but in a way only affecting > ftrace itself. Said change converted that failure to an oops
So if you have a reproducer and can test the suggested one-liner patch for it, I don't really are whether I personally consider your odd test-case "sane" or not ;)
I think the __probe_kernel_write() code path is kind of odd and nasty, but I think your point was good, and I think the one-liner makes conceptual sense. So I don't have any problem applying that patch, and even marking it for stable. I just want to make sure that it gets tested on that odd (crazy) case, just to validate that there's nothing else going on.
So I don't need some test-case for *me* to test and care about. I just want that patch validated so that I can happily commit it with a tested-by..
Linus
| |