From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:37:22 +0100 (BST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509281418500.6830@goblin.wat.veritas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200509261758.23705.blaisorblade@yahoo.it>
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.
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.
Though now I'm doubting there was any such case at all.
Hugh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-28 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-26 18:23 [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3 Blaisorblade
2005-08-26 19:11 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-08-26 19:58 ` [uml-devel] " Blaisorblade
2005-09-02 21:02 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-09-04 19:10 ` [uml-devel] " Blaisorblade
2005-09-07 12:00 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-09-13 18:25 ` Blaisorblade
2005-09-20 15:06 ` Remap_file_pages, RSS limits, security implications (was: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3) Blaisorblade
2005-09-20 18:23 ` Rik van Riel
2005-09-21 15:16 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-09-21 16:16 ` Blaisorblade
2005-09-21 16:50 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-09-21 17:02 ` Blaisorblade
2005-09-26 15:58 ` [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3 Blaisorblade
2005-09-28 13:37 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2005-09-28 16:20 ` Blaisorblade
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=Pine.LNX.4.61.0509281418500.6830@goblin.wat.veritas.com \
--to=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=blaisorblade@yahoo.it \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).