[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <497D798C.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:51:24 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86: add
pte_set_flags/clear_flags forpteflag manipulation
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> 23.01.09 22:05 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I think a comment (or event a BUG_ON()) should be added here to make
>> clear that this absolutely must not be used to toggle the present bit. I
>> even view toggling _PAGE_PSE as dangerous this way.
>>
>> And alternative would be to make these macros and #undef them (or keep
>> them inline functions but add destructive #define-s) after all their users.
>>
>
>I don't see any particular problem with changing PSE or even Present
>with these functions; they don't operate on live in-memory ptes, so its
>not like they could ever be used to modify a pte unless followed with
>some kind of set_pte operation. It is unwise to change any pte flag
>without knowing what you're doing (though P or PSE would probably have
>less subtle effects than some of the others).
Whether a pte is live doesn't matter here: If you change P on Xen, the
frame number representation *must* change from/to PFN to/from MFN.
In no case (other than iomem pages) is it allowed to flip just this bit.
Jan
--
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