[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTik5FcZ3rNtiwN8kYP0LZh+YqGtKP_RteoFiWa16@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:02:37 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/20] ARM: LPAE: Introduce L_PTE_NOEXEC and L_PTE_NOWRITE
On 15 November 2010 18:30, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 06:00:25PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-2level.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-2level.h
>> @@ -128,6 +128,8 @@
>> #define L_PTE_USER (1 << 8)
>> #define L_PTE_EXEC (1 << 9)
>> #define L_PTE_SHARED (1 << 10) /* shared(v6), coherent(xsc3) */
>> +#define L_PTE_NOEXEC (0)
>> +#define L_PTE_NOWRITE (0)
>
> Let's not make this more complicated than it has to be. If we need the
> inverse of WRITE and EXEC, then that's what we should change everyone to,
> not invent a new system to work along side the old system.
Question on the pgprot_noncached/writecombine/dmacoherent - in the
current implementation we pass L_PTE_EXEC on the dmacoherent macro. Do
we need to pass L_PTE_NOEXEC to the noncached/writecombine ones? I
don't see a reason for any of these to be executable but maybe we can
let the code calling them decide.
Thanks.
--
Catalin
--
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