Re: [PATCH] [1/5] CPA: Split static_protections into required_static_prot and advised_static_prot

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...>, Andi Kleen <ak@...>, <mingo@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 12:39 pm

On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 04:50:14PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

Sorry the requirement is no NX, not NX. I left out the "no"
in the second sentence.


Yes that is what my patch (or rather a followup) patch implements.


You mean in try_preserve_large_page()?

No actually they were not completely enforced previously at all, because
it did only check the restrictions of the first page.

On the end of my patch series the enforcement is actually stricter
than it was before, although not 100%.

-Andi

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] [1/5] CPA: Split static_protections into require..., Andi Kleen, (Sat Feb 9, 12:39 pm)