![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:53:17 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> said: Andrew> David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 22:44:44 -0800, Andrew Morton >> <akpm@digeo.com> said: Andrew> Looks like ia64 needs work, too... >> Yes, should be the same problem there. The fix looks fine to >> me. (Let's just hope I remember it when Linus puts it in his >> tree...). Andrew> I've updated that patch to cover ia64, but I think we'll run Andrew> with the other approach - just remove those calls to Andrew> SET_PERSONALITY(). Andrew> They just seem illogical anyway - why are we switching into Andrew> the new image's personality prior to unmapping the old Andrew> image's memory? I don't know why SET_PERSONALITY() came to be where it is now, but it does make some sense to me. One thing that comes to mind: on ia64, we normally don't map data segments with execute permission but for backwards-compatibility, we need to do that for x86 binaries. I think there might be a problem with that if SET_PERSONALITY() was done too late. Certainly something that could be fixed, but I suspect a similar ordering issue (perhaps on SPARC?) might have triggered the current placement of SET_PERSONALITY(). --david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||