[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160518175102.GX5783@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:51:02 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Russ Dill <russ.dill@...com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] asm-generic: io: Add exec versions of ioremap
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:12:20AM -0500, Dave Gerlach wrote:
> Ok thank you for the pointer. I agree, the memremap API looks like a better
> fit for this. I think it likely makes the most sense to still add these
> ioremap_exec and ioremap_exec_nocache and then call them through the
> memremap API based on new flags. This will fit into the current use model
> for memremap as it currently uses all of the other ioremap calls internally,
> and doing it how I just described will let this code evolve along with
> memremap.
I would _really_ prefer not to do that. Why? Because IO memory does
not have the required properties to be executable. IO memory is normally
memory which has side effects - and by side effects, I mean reading it
can provoke hardware to perform some action. You don't want to be
executing from such memory.
So, in my mind, ioremap_exec makes absolutely no sense, and having it
gives people a new interface to abuse - and abuse they will.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists