lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Bug 10732] REGRESSION: 2.6.26-rc2-git4: X server failed start onX61s laptop
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > This comes from an assumption in 1c12c4cf9411eb130b245fa8d0fbbaf989477c7b
> > mprotect: prevent alteration of the PAT bits, that PTE_MASK is what it's
> > supposed to be: whereas it's been wrong forever with PAE, staying 32-bit
> > where 64-bit is needed.
>
> Can we *please* just fix PTE_MASK?

That's very much what I'd prefer too. Jeremy has patches in Ingo's
tree to do that, which have been tested - though perhaps not in
combination with the PAT pte_modify changes. I did check that they're
not incompatible in theory, but I sure better try them out later today.

> And can we agree to never EVER use that PAGE_MASK thing (which was only
> ever meant to work on *addresses*) for any pte operations (including the
> definition of PTE_MASK)? Because PAGE_MASK is very much the word-size, and
> in 32-bit PAE, the page table entry is bigger.
>
> IOE, PTE_MASK should be a "pteval_t". And it should have absolutely
> *nothing* to do with PAGE_MASK. EVER.

Yes, Jeremy makes it a pteval_t. (My builds and Ingo's builds succeed,
but I've not worked out how that goes down in assembly: there was an
_AT macro in there before, which you've kept too - Jeremy?)

> IOW, maybe something like this?
>
> And no, I haven't tested this at all. But it should make PTE_MASK have
> (a) the right type ("pteval_t", not "long" - the latter is pure and utter
> crap)
> (b) the right value (proper mask, not a sign-extended long - again, the
> latter is pure and utter crap)
>
> but for all I know there might be some broken code that depends on the
> current incorrect and totally broken #defines, so this needs testing and
> thinking about.

Yes, I'm highly resistant to taking untested patches here. The two-liner
I sent last night was about my fifth attempt to get it working, and I did
start off from a small PTE_MASK correction which didn't work at all. It
looked rather like yours, I guess I missed the __PHYSICAL_LOW_BITS part.
Jeremy's goes a lot further, he'll know the gotchas better.

> It also causes these warnings on 32-bit PAE:
>
> AS arch/x86/kernel/head_32.o
> arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S: Assembler messages:
> arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S:225: Warning: left operand is a bignum; integer 0 assumed
> arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S:609: Warning: left operand is a bignum; integer 0 assumed
>
> and I do not see why (the end result seems to be identical).
>
> Ingo, comments?
>
> Oh, and those #define's should be moved from <asm/page.h> to
> <asm/pgtable.h>, I think. They have nothing to do with pages (despite the
> name of "physical_page_mask", and really are meaningful only in the
> context of some kind of page table entry.

Jeremy still has them in asm/page.h. Like your subsequent pte bit
cleanups, that can be added later: the important thing is to get X
working again on 32-bit NX systems.

Hugh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-20 06:25    [W:0.105 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site