From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751095AbVI1QVR (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:21:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751108AbVI1QVR (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:21:17 -0400 Received: from smtp003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.34]:25703 "HELO smtp003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751095AbVI1QVQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:21:16 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.it; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=PKj9BXoPr/uGlskgS5L2uBtSYzFYOMolIPW+Uq4nZEwwq2Fzxwgxk63ipKhMNUbLeDXms1UTUteZHRE6onDoKGg//VqSdPTrahmYupaSp2pGWXvUOGSyOf1d4eQZsqyfDVkLQAlUfB0OoJKvtmBLsX/1jiH4Tdb03FYFiOcX4pM= ; From: Blaisorblade To: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:20:09 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: LKML References: <200508262023.29170.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <200509261758.23705.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509281820.14098.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 28 September 2005 15:37, Hugh Dickins wrote: > Sorry, it's really hard to read your interspersed comments. Perhaps I > need to switch on some colour option when reading your mails, but I've > never found the need for it before. Please, use a blank line above > and below your comments to help us locate them and read them, thanks. Ok, will do. > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Blaisorblade wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 September 2005 14:00, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > So far as I can see (I may have missed it), you really don't need to > > > change from the write boolean > > > > > > (perhaps -1 for exec in one arch??) > > > > ? Not understood this part, ignoring it? > > Maybe you mean "except one arch, x86_64, which supports exec protection?" > > No, I meant the current code uses "0" for read fault, "1" for write fault, > and (in a quick search) only found one architecture (I forget which, > certainly not x86_64) which might have been interested to pass down > a different value to handle_mm_fault to distinguish execution fault: > for which I was suggesting to use "-1", rather than change everywhere. In my local tree I've restricted the changes to generic arch code, and to x86_64 which uses the __handle_mm_fault with VM_EXEC if needed. The rest keep using handle_mm_fault (there's still the check for VM_MANYPROTS). > Though now I'm doubting there was any such case at all. > Hugh -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!". Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894) http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it