Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:34:58 -0700 | From | Martin Bligh <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 |
| |
>>>Not really (though the clarity and reassurance of the additional >>>MAX_SWAPFILES test is good). We went over it a year or two back, >>>and the macro contortions do involve MAX_SWAPFILES_SHIFT: which >>>up to and including 2.6.17 has enforced the MAX_SWAPFILES limit. >> >>It looks though as if the testers were able to define more than 32 swap >>devices. So there is the danger of overwriting the memory >>following the swap info if we do not fix this. >> >>Where are the macro contortions? No arch uses MAX_SWAPFILES_SHIFT for its >>definitions and the only other significant use is in swapops.h to >>determine the shift. > > > I'll go mad if I try to work it out again: I was as worried as you > when I discovered that test in sys_swapon a year or so ago, apparently > without any check on MAX_SWAPFILES; and went moaning to Andrew. But > once I'd worked through swp_type, pte_to_swp_entry, swp_entry_to_pte, > swp_entry, I did come to the conclusion that the MAX_SWAPFILES bound > was actually safely built in there.
If it's that difficult to figure out, is that not reason enough to rip it all out and replace it? ;-) Life seems quite complicated enough as it is.
M. - 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/
| |