login
Header Space

 
 

Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...>, Frans Pop <elendil@...>, Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Packard, Keith <keith.packard@...>, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...>
Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 - 7:23 pm

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 08:18:45PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:

Hugh: Thanks for looking into this. Yes. I like your modified patch. Simpler
and smaller.
 

Yes. we can call it a loophole or defect.


Yes. That PAGE_NX part indeed looks bogus.


They cannot get out of sync. So, we can do without the change here. But, I felt
it is safer to take things from old pte.


Yes. We can mask out these bits from vm_page_prot, that way we will not
'or' them if they get out of sync.
If your below modified patch is OK, I can send an incremental patch to
change pte_modify() to inherit PAT bits only from oldpte.

Thanks,
Venki

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

Messages in current thread:
[git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Fri May 2, 3:22 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 3:37 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 4:40 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 11:57 am)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Venki Pallipadi, (Tue May 6, 6:42 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Frans Pop, (Sun May 25, 11:08 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Wed May 7, 3:02 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 6:36 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Wed May 7, 3:18 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT & mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Wed May 7, 7:23 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Ingo Molnar, (Fri May 9, 6:08 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 4:05 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Fri May 9, 6:11 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Keith Packard, (Sat May 10, 1:45 am)
RE: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 9, 6:20 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Dave Airlie, (Sat May 10, 2:19 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Keith Packard, (Sat May 10, 2:29 am)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Venki Pallipadi, (Fri May 9, 4:09 pm)
Re: [git head] X86_PAT &amp; mprotect, Hugh Dickins, (Fri May 9, 4:48 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 1:45 pm)
Re: fb layer &amp; ioremap_wc, Jesse Barnes, (Mon May 5, 3:04 pm)
Re: fb layer &amp; ioremap_wc, Frans Pop, (Fri Jun 13, 12:42 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 1:59 pm)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Mon May 5, 1:00 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Ingo Molnar, (Sun May 4, 5:04 am)
RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Pallipadi, Venkatesh, (Fri May 2, 5:55 pm)
Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?, Jesse Barnes, (Fri May 2, 6:07 pm)
speck-geostationary