[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f36f4ca6-a3bb-8db9-01e6-65fec0916b58@loongson.cn>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:12:59 +0800
From: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS/bpf: Enable bpf_probe_read{, str}() on MIPS again
On 03/22/2021 12:46 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/Kconfig b/arch/mips/Kconfig
>> index 160b3a8..4b94ec7 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/mips/Kconfig
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ config MIPS
>> select ARCH_BINFMT_ELF_STATE if MIPS_FP_SUPPORT
>> select ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE
>> select ARCH_HAS_KCOV
>> + select ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE
> Hmm, documentation on ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE seems rather
> scarce, but based on my guess shouldn't this be "if !EVA"?
>
> Maciej
I do not quite know what the effect if MIPS EVA (Enhanced Virtual
Addressing)
is set, I saw that ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE should be
restricted
to archs with non-overlapping address ranges.
I wonder whether MIPS EVA will generate overlapping address ranges?
If yes, it is better to make ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE depend
on !EVA on MIPS.
Thanks,
Tiezhu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists