From 595bf2aacae96d0f87352a1ff5476b79e52e212f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin Schwidefsky Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 15:43:32 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] s390: in_interrupt vs. in_atomic The condition for no context in do_exception checks for hard and soft interrupts by using in_interrupt() but not for preemption. This is bad for the users of __copy_from/to_user_inatomic because the fault handler might call schedule although the preemption count is != 0. Use in_atomic() instead in_interrupt(). Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- arch/s390/mm/fault.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'arch/s390') diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c index 80306bc8c79..75fde949d12 100644 --- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c +++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ do_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, int is_protection) * we are not in an interrupt and that there is a * user context. */ - if (user_address == 0 || in_interrupt() || !mm) + if (user_address == 0 || in_atomic() || !mm) goto no_context; /* -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2