[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802091806220.3145@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:09:23 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/5] CPA: Split static_protections into required_static_prot
and advised_static_prot
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Note the behaviour for pageattr and thus DEBUG_RODATA / debugging
> > > sitations where you don't care about your TLB this
> > > does not change, this makes only a difference for the initial init_32
> > > direct mapping setup.
> >
> > Your patches do change the behaviour. The range checking breaks the
> > enforcement of some restrictions for the sake of keeping the large
> > page intact.
>
> 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.
Right, you poked my nose to it. I did not think about it when I coded
it. It is wrong and needs to be fixed, but not by the range check you
introduced.
> On the end of my patch series the enforcement is actually stricter
> than it was before, although not 100%.
As far as I can tell it is more relaxed, as it will make overlapping
regions of rodata and rwdata completely rw instead of splitting it up.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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