Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "write_ldt".
2007 Apr 18
0
[PATCH 20/21] i386 Ldt cleanups 3
..._to_user(ptr, mm->context.ldt, size))
+ if (copy_to_user(ptr, pc->ldt, size))
err = -EFAULT;
- up(&mm->context.sem);
+ up(&pc->sem);
if (err < 0)
goto error_return;
if (size != bytecount) {
@@ -176,10 +181,11 @@ static int read_default_ldt(void __user
static int write_ldt(void __user * ptr, unsigned long bytecount, int oldmode)
{
- struct mm_struct * mm = current->mm;
+ mm_context_t *pc = ¤t->mm->context;
__u32 entry_1, entry_2;
int error;
struct user_desc ldt_info;
+ int page_number;
error = -EINVAL;
if (bytecount != sizeof(ldt_info)...
2007 Apr 18
0
[PATCH 20/21] i386 Ldt cleanups 3
..._to_user(ptr, mm->context.ldt, size))
+ if (copy_to_user(ptr, pc->ldt, size))
err = -EFAULT;
- up(&mm->context.sem);
+ up(&pc->sem);
if (err < 0)
goto error_return;
if (size != bytecount) {
@@ -176,10 +181,11 @@ static int read_default_ldt(void __user
static int write_ldt(void __user * ptr, unsigned long bytecount, int oldmode)
{
- struct mm_struct * mm = current->mm;
+ mm_context_t *pc = ¤t->mm->context;
__u32 entry_1, entry_2;
int error;
struct user_desc ldt_info;
+ int page_number;
error = -EINVAL;
if (bytecount != sizeof(ldt_info)...
2007 Apr 18
1
[PATCH 2/12] ldt-accessors
...Index: linux-2.6.13/arch/i386/kernel/ldt.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.13.orig/arch/i386/kernel/ldt.c 2005-08-08 13:50:20.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.13/arch/i386/kernel/ldt.c 2005-08-08 13:53:28.000000000 -0700
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@
static int write_ldt(void __user * ptr, unsigned long bytecount, int oldmode)
{
struct mm_struct * mm = current->mm;
- __u32 entry_1, entry_2, *lp;
+ __u32 entry_1, entry_2;
int error;
struct user_desc ldt_info;
@@ -205,8 +205,6 @@
goto out_unlock;
}
- lp = (__u32 *) ((ldt_info.entry_number <<...
2007 Apr 18
1
[PATCH 2/12] ldt-accessors
...Index: linux-2.6.13/arch/i386/kernel/ldt.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.13.orig/arch/i386/kernel/ldt.c 2005-08-08 13:50:20.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.13/arch/i386/kernel/ldt.c 2005-08-08 13:53:28.000000000 -0700
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@
static int write_ldt(void __user * ptr, unsigned long bytecount, int oldmode)
{
struct mm_struct * mm = current->mm;
- __u32 entry_1, entry_2, *lp;
+ __u32 entry_1, entry_2;
int error;
struct user_desc ldt_info;
@@ -205,8 +205,6 @@
goto out_unlock;
}
- lp = (__u32 *) ((ldt_info.entry_number <<...
2007 Dec 06
51
[PATCH 0/19] desc_struct integration
...l, namely, of unifying the desc_struct, an ongoing
effort, being this the beginning. A lot of old code has to be touched to
accomplish that.
I don't consider this patch ready for inclusion. Basically, the main reason
is that I change the signatures of write_idt_entry(), write_gdt_entry(), and
write_ldt_entry(). This is needed to account for the differences between the
two architectures. (For example, gate descriptors in x86_64 are 16-byte long
and can't be represented by low and high entries). As my patch series were
64-bit only, I hadn't come across the problem before.
I think this inte...
2007 Dec 06
51
[PATCH 0/19] desc_struct integration
...l, namely, of unifying the desc_struct, an ongoing
effort, being this the beginning. A lot of old code has to be touched to
accomplish that.
I don't consider this patch ready for inclusion. Basically, the main reason
is that I change the signatures of write_idt_entry(), write_gdt_entry(), and
write_ldt_entry(). This is needed to account for the differences between the
two architectures. (For example, gate descriptors in x86_64 are 16-byte long
and can't be represented by low and high entries). As my patch series were
64-bit only, I hadn't come across the problem before.
I think this inte...
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
Chris Wright wrote:
>* Zachary Amsden (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
>
>
>>Does Xen assume page aligned descriptor tables? I assume from this
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>patch and snippets I have gathered from others, that is a yes, and other
>>things here imply that DT pages are not shadowed. If so, Xen itself
>>must have live segments
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
Chris Wright wrote:
>* Zachary Amsden (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
>
>
>>Does Xen assume page aligned descriptor tables? I assume from this
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>patch and snippets I have gathered from others, that is a yes, and other
>>things here imply that DT pages are not shadowed. If so, Xen itself
>>must have live segments