[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801282302.51796.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:02:50 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...umbus.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Construct 32 bit boot time page tables in native format.
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> Actually, no. We only do that with the kernel code mapping which should be
> >>> safe as long as TLBs are not flushed (and they aren't).
> >>>
> >> Er, what? Assuming the TLB will retain some mappings while you
> >> overwrite the pagetable is a highly dubious prospect. Are you copying
> >> the same values over, or something else?
> >
> > As long as a relocatable kernel is not used to restore a non-relocatable one
> > (or vice versa), we're copying the same values over.
> >
>
> So that case is deliberately considered broken?
Not deliberately, but the fix I had caused a regression. It's just a pending
issue.
Rafael
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists