[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130408125129.GC4395@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:51:29 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: x86/mm/pageattr: Code without effect?
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:28:47PM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
> To enforce the PSE bit here sounds reasonably right. And also apply
> canon_pgprot, too. GLOBAL I don't know for sure.
Well sure, you don't want to flush those from the TLB if it is kernel
memory since it is mapped in every process AFAICT.
> By the way there is a usage of new_prot a bit down of
> try_preserve_large_page which probably should be changed into
> req_prot, too. That was enforcing the canon_pgprot before the change.
> So that may be considered a regression to before.
Which one?
Actually, after Andrea's patch it all makes sense - we initialize
new_prot from req_prot *after* all protections checks. new_prot are,
IMHO, the final protection bits which we are actually going to change.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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