From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1E0ypq-0005zd-JT for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:49:50 -0700 Received: from fallback.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.13]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1E0ypp-0000BO-6U for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:49:50 -0700 Received: from mx2.elte.hu (mx2.elte.hu [157.181.151.9]) by fallback.mail.elte.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A4650378 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:11:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Message-ID: <20050805081013.GB6409@elte.hu> References: <200508042124.36786.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200508042124.36786.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Subject: [uml-devel] Re: Bugs on your remap_file_pages protections implementations Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:10:13 +0200 To: Blaisorblade Cc: LKML , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net * Blaisorblade wrote: > Hi Ingo, I'm the young UML hacker you met at OLS and who got your UML > patches sent ;-) > > I've been studying your patch (and the whole Linux VM, indeed) in the > past days, and I have some remarks, about the version of the code in > 2.6.4-rc2-mm1 (which is the same you sent me) - I've now downloaded > the version dropped from 2.6.5-mm1, but it doesn't seem to address > those problems. > > Btw, I've now seen why that patch was dropped, but not why it wasn't > resubmit. was not resubmitted due to me only having 30 hours available to hack, per day ;) Feel free to pick the patch up. > *) with your patch, remapped pages without MAP_INHERIT are IMHO not > safe across swapout; re-swapping them in will pass through the > arch-specific fault handler, which will check VMA's protections, and > fail if the VMA originally had MAP_NONE. Or am I missing something? not sure, was a long time ago. I have checked swap-safeness, but only once. UML did work though, but i dont think i ever pushed it into swapping out its RAM-file. Ingo ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel