From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:57:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:57:52 -0500 Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([80.146.160.66]:30593 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:57:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3E160948.1060008@colorfullife.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 23:06:00 +0100 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021202 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH] extable cleanup Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > >On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Rusty Russell wrote: >> >> Fairly straightforward consolidation of extable handling. Sparc64 is >> trickiest, with its extable range stuff (ideally, the ranges would be >> in a separate __extable_range section, then the extable walking code >> could be made common, too). >> >> Only tested on x86: ppc and sparc64 written untested, others broken. > >Did you test on a true i386, which needs exception handling very early on >to handle the test for broken WP? In other words, are all the exception >table data structures properly initialized? > > It's the other way around: a real 80386 doesn't need the early exception handling, all other cpus need it. The WP test works by writing to a write-protected page while at ring 0. A real 80386 ignores the write-protected bit, later x86 cpus honor it and cause a page fault. Rusty, against which kernel is the patch you have posted? I've tried both 2.5.54 and the latest bk shapshot from www.kernel.org, I get an patch error in kernel/extable.c. -- Manfred