On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
quoted text
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> > > > Exactly. The access to a ro region results in a fault. I have nowhere
> > > > seen that trigger, but I can reproduce the trylock() WARN_ON, which
> > > > confirms that there is concurrent access to the NVRAM registers. The
> > > > backtrace pattern is similar to the one you have seen.
> > > are you still getting WARN_ON *with* all the mutex based fixes already
> > > applied?
> > 
> > The WARN_ON triggers with current mainline. Is there any fixlet in
> > Linus tree missing ?
> > 
> > > with the mutex patches in place (without protection patch) we are
> > > still reproducing the issue, until we apply the set_memory_ro patch.
> > 
> > That does not make sense to me. If the memory_ro patch is providing
> > _real_ protection then you _must_ run into an access violation. If not,
> > then the patch just papers over the real problem in some mysterious
> > way.
> > 
> 
> not if the bad code is doing copy_to_user .... (or similar)

You mean: copy_from_user :) This would require that the e1000e
nvram region is writable via copy_from_user by an e1000e user space
interface. A quick grep does not reviel such a horrible interface.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html