[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-06-06 19:39    [W:0.021 / U:0.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site