- 20 12月, 2012 10 次提交
-
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
note that they are relying on access_ok() already checked by caller. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Again, conditional on CONFIG_GENERIC_SIGALTSTACK Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Conditional on CONFIG_GENERIC_SIGALTSTACK; architectures that do not select it are completely unaffected Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Compat counterpart of current_user_stack_pointer(); for most of the biarch architectures those two are identical, but e.g. arm64 and arm use different registers for stack pointer... Note that amd64 variants of current_user_stack_pointer/compat_user_stack_pointer do *not* rely on pt_regs having been through FIXUP_TOP_OF_STACK. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
to be used by rt_sigreturn instances Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Cross-architecture equivalent of rdusp(); default is user_stack_pointer(current_pt_regs()) - that works for almost all platforms that have usp saved in pt_regs. The only exception from that is ia64 - we want memory stack, not the backing store for register one. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
for the architectures that have usp in pt_regs and do not have user_stack_pointer() already defined. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
All architectures have CONFIG_GENERIC_KERNEL_THREAD CONFIG_GENERIC_KERNEL_EXECVE __ARCH_WANT_SYS_EXECVE None of them have __ARCH_WANT_KERNEL_EXECVE and there are only two callers of kernel_execve() (which is a trivial wrapper for do_execve() now) left. Kill the conditionals and make both callers use do_execve(). Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
- 29 11月, 2012 30 次提交
-
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
the first one is equal to signal_pt_regs(), the second is never used (and always NULL, while we are at it). Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Always equal to task_pt_regs(current); defined only when we are in signal delivery. It may be different from current_pt_regs() - e.g. architectures like m68k may have pt_regs location on exception different from that on a syscall and signals (just as ptrace handling) may happen on exceptions as well as on syscalls. When they are equal, it's often better to have signal_pt_regs defined (in asm/ptrace.h) as current_pt_regs - that tends to be optimized better than default would be. However, optimisation is the only reason why we might want an arch-specific definition; if current_pt_regs() and task_pt_regs(current) have different values, the latter one is right. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
now it can be done... Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: NMichal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
same braindamage as on s390 - the first two arguments of clone(2) in the wrong order. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-