linux-kernel - Re: PTE access rules & abstraction

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:44:23 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: PTE access rules & abstraction

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 11:15 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> The ptep_modify_prot_start/commit pair specifies a single pte update in
> such a way to allow more implementation flexibility - ie, there's no
> naked requirement for an atomic fetch-and-clear operation.  I chose the
> transaction-like terminology to emphasize that the start/commit
> functions must be strictly paired; there's no way to fail or abort the
> "transaction".  A whole group of those start/commit pairs can be batched
> together without affecting their semantics.

I still can't see the point of having now 3 functions instead of just
one such as ptep_modify_protection(). I don't see what it buys you other
than adding gratuituous new interfaces.

Ben;.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/