execshield rebase

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 04:38:38PM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
 > execshield rebased against 2.6.28, merged by git and then fixed up
 > by hand.
 > 
 > build tested against x86-64 and pae/non-pae i386.
 > 
 > i'm uploading a scratch srpm but it will take a damned long time to
 > upload so i'll include the build id in a reply.

interdiff choked, so I moved your diff over the current one
and cvs diff'd, which coped a little better, but it still isn't
too easy to see the delta.  It's times like this I wish we
did have a git tree.

The only bits that jumped out at me were..

@@ -151,100 +312,103 @@ index a7d50a5..86e35cb 100644
 +		 * we won't hit this branch next time around.
 +		 */
 +		if (print_fatal_signals >= 2) {
-+			printk(KERN_ERR "#GPF fixup (%ld[seg:%lx]) at %08lx, CPU#%d.\n",
++			printk(KERN_ERR "#GFP fixup (%ld[seg:%lx]) at %08lx, CPU#%d.\n",
 +				error_code, error_code/8, regs->ip, smp_processor_id());

It's a "general protection fault", so this seems wrong.

 +	if (print_fatal_signals) {
-+		printk(KERN_ERR "#GPF(%ld[seg:%lx]) at %08lx, CPU#%d.\n", error_code,
-+			error_code/8, regs->ip, smp_processor_id());
++		printk(KERN_ERR "#GFP(%ld[seg:%lx]) at %08lx, CPU#%d.\n",
++			error_code, error_code/8, regs->ip, smp_processor_id());

ditto.


The rest of the interdiff makes my head hurt right now.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk