[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFr9PXnutp0X-Rm9MQ=qYaFE5fPuDLRXCQBNRMwEYMKT=KeqHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 19:55:21 +0900
From: Daniel Palmer <daniel@...ngy.jp>
To: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Ungerer <gerg@...nel.org>, geert@...ux-m68k.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k: Implement kernel memory protection
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 at 08:14, Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com> wrote:
> I find the head.S assembly too much of
> a headache to change, but that would certainly be safer.
Yeah, I'm going to avoid touching that if possible. :)
I think I can be done from C and I think I have something working but
it's not pretty.
> Wasting up to 256 kB is a pain on 030. Maybe rather skip protecting the
> last section?
Right now it's more than that as the end of .text needs to be aligned
to 256KB and then the start and end of the RO data need to be aligned.
It's about 512KB waste on my MVME147. If EXCEPTION_TABLE(16) was moved
so .text and RO data become a contiguous region that'd make it always
<256KB padding.
Cheers,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists