[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1512081915320.3595@nanos>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:17:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/34] x86, pkeys: differentiate instruction fetches
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
> static inline bool arch_vma_access_permitted(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> - bool write, bool foreign)
> + bool write, bool execute, bool foreign)
....
> + /*
> + * gups are always data accesses, not instruction
> + * fetches, so execute=0 here
Again. Can we please be consistent about booleans?
> + */
> + if (!arch_vma_access_permitted(vma, write, 0, foreign))
> return -EFAULT;
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -576,8 +580,11 @@ bool vma_permits_fault(struct vm_area_st
> /*
> * The architecture might have a hardware protection
> * mechanism other than read/write that can deny access.
> + *
> + * gup always represents data access, not instruction
> + * fetches, so execute=0 here:
> */
> - if (!arch_vma_access_permitted(vma, write, foreign))
> + if (!arch_vma_access_permitted(vma, write, 0, foreign))
> return false;
Ditto.
Other than that: Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
--
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