Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 5 Oct 2008 09:02:26 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, David Miller wrote: |
| |
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:55:14 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > > > > > Exactly. The access to a ro region results in a fault. I have > > > > > nowhere seen that trigger, but I can reproduce the trylock() > > > > > WARN_ON, which confirms that there is concurrent access to > > > > > the NVRAM registers. The backtrace pattern is similar to the > > > > > one you have seen. > > > > are you still getting WARN_ON *with* all the mutex based fixes > > > > already applied? > > > > > > The WARN_ON triggers with current mainline. Is there any fixlet in > > > Linus tree missing ? > > > > > > > with the mutex patches in place (without protection patch) we > > > > are still reproducing the issue, until we apply the > > > > set_memory_ro patch. > > > > > > That does not make sense to me. If the memory_ro patch is > > > providing _real_ protection then you _must_ run into an access > > > violation. If not, then the patch just papers over the real > > > problem in some mysterious way. > > > > > > > not if the bad code is doing copy_to_user .... (or similar) > > You mean: copy_from_user :) This would require that the e1000e > nvram region is writable via copy_from_user by an e1000e user space > interface. A quick grep does not reviel such a horrible interface.
I meant a "copy_to_user" to a duff pointer, somewhere in the kernel.
| |