Andrew> David Mosberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 22:44:44 -0800, Andrew Morton
>> <email@example.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
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> 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().
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/