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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox