Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:31:03 +0100 | From | James Pearson <> | Subject | Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ? |
| |
Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 06:00:57PM +0100, James Pearson wrote: > >>H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> >>>Anton Arapov wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hey guys, the future of this patch is important for me. What do you >>>>think, has this patch any chances to be committed to upstream? >>>> >>>>James Pearson <james-p@moving-picture.com> writes: >>>> >>>> >>>>>H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>>>There isn't that much that is duplicated - and there are also bits of >>>>>the /proc/PID/mem code that are not needed in this case, so I'm not >>>>>really sure if it is worth doing. >>>>> >>>>>I did submit a patch a few months ago - see: >>>>> >>>>><http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117862109623007&w=2> >>>> >>>> >>>Looks reasonable to me, except for the one overlong line. >>> >> >>OK, here is the patch (without the long line) against 2.6.23-rc5 - what >>else needs to be done to get it committed? > > > Remove duplicate ptrace_may_attach() checks, unecessary (), {} and > spaces before pointer names -- char *buf.
environ_read() in the patch uses ptrace_may_attach() in a similar way as does mem_read(). Given that environ_read() is based on mem_read(), does this mean that duplicate ptrace_may_attach() checks need to be removed from mem_read() as well? Which ptrace_may_attach() needs to be removed?
Thanks
James Pearson - 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/
| |