[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ace8e8c2-3e0e-70fc-69f2-2aa22c5e4aa9@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:20:36 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
mike.kravetz@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] x86/mm: Introduce ptep_set_wrprotect_flush and
related functions
On 06/07/2018 05:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Can you ask the architecture folks to clarify the situation? And, if
> your notes are indeed correct, don't we need code to handle spurious
> faults?
I'll double check that I didn't misunderstand the situation and that it
has not changed on processors with shadow stacks.
But, as far as spurious faults, wouldn't it just be a fault because
we've transiently gone to Present=0? We already do that when clearing
the Dirty bit, so I'm not sure that's new. We surely already handle
that one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists