Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 03 Jan 2003 23:06:00 +0100 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] extable cleanup |
| |
> > >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
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |