From: Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: PowerPC exec page protection
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:44:20 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040414084420.GA1950@krispykreme> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040414083550.GB8303@mail.shareable.org>
Hi,
> <asm-ppc/pgtable.h> and <asm-ppc64/pgtable.h> both define the
> following map of protection bits:
>
> #define __P000 PAGE_NONE
> #define __P001 PAGE_READONLY_X
> #define __P010 PAGE_COPY
> #define __P011 PAGE_COPY_X
> #define __P100 PAGE_READONLY
> #define __P101 PAGE_READONLY_X
> #define __P110 PAGE_COPY
> #define __P111 PAGE_COPY_X
>
> #define __S000 PAGE_NONE
> #define __S001 PAGE_READONLY_X
> #define __S010 PAGE_SHARED
> #define __S011 PAGE_SHARED_X
> #define __S100 PAGE_READONLY
> #define __S101 PAGE_READONLY_X
> #define __S110 PAGE_SHARED
> #define __S111 PAGE_SHARED_X
>
> The _X flags seem wrongly placed, as bit 2 is the PROT_EXEC bit, not
> bit 0. Is the above intentional?
Its backwards and we know it :) Ive got a patch to implement per page
execute on ppc64 and that did pop up.
Thanks for pointing it out, are you looking at ppc* page protection or
just chanced upon it?
Anton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-14 8:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-14 7:28 Non-Exec stack patches Siddha, Suresh B
2004-04-14 8:23 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-14 8:35 ` PowerPC exec page protection Jamie Lokier
2004-04-14 8:44 ` Anton Blanchard [this message]
2004-04-14 9:35 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-14 11:37 ` [PATCH] (IA64) Fix ugly __[PS]* macros in <asm-ia64/pgtable.h> Jamie Lokier
2004-04-14 16:07 ` David Mosberger
2004-04-14 18:46 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-14 19:02 ` David Mosberger
2004-04-14 19:14 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-14 19:28 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-14 20:05 ` David Mosberger
2004-04-14 21:05 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-14 22:34 ` David Mosberger
2004-04-15 15:26 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-15 17:45 ` David Mosberger
2004-04-14 9:47 ` Non-Exec stack patches Jamie Lokier
2004-04-14 18:30 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-14 20:54 ` Jeff Dike
2004-04-14 18:35 ` Kurt Garloff
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040414084420.GA1950@krispykreme \
--to=anton@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=garloff@suse.de \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.