Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752108AbYBCSU6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:20:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750796AbYBCSUu (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:20:50 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]:1276 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750778AbYBCSUt (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:20:49 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=HEOmuFunaPtwQzmRVDMR04VzV70mmcCan1gu4M1zNRrjIEnGRkZiYkGjbjC5RMgrEq49MSNuGmpGmijof33Jb88S7K/hykVxuDhdxtBPeY3Au7cnKLAfQ9crLktIf0KU5aPH2UCbeikGvGgmzU7U5eRe1Ye6NAIyfR1Tfvpfa6M= Message-ID: <3d8471ca0802031020r4b735f27q83317ee8facf53cc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:20:46 +0100 From: "Guillaume Chazarain" To: "Al Viro" Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: return -EPERM when preventing read of /proc/*/maps Cc: "Andrew Morton" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080104151931.GC27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080104135731.2908.90012.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20080104141443.GB27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080104153557.13e24970@inria.fr> <20080104151931.GC27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 25539af53730a512 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1020 Lines: 29 On Jan 4, 2008 4:19 PM, Al Viro wrote: > Umm... Actually, m_next() and m_stop() both appear to be too convoluted. > > * m_next() never gets v == NULL > * the only reason why we do that mmput et.al. both from ->next() and > ->stop() is that we try to avoid having priv->mm; why bother? > * why the _hell_ is proc_maps_private defined in include/linux/proc_fs.h, > of all places? > * while we are at it, why is it in any header at all? Having that sucker > in task_mmu.c and task_nommu.c would be more than enough (and we'd avoid > that ifdef in definition, while we are at it). > > How about this: Hi Al, Any update on this patch? As you completely rewrote it, I thought you would take care of pushing it forward. Thanks. -- Guillaume -- 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/