Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:51:29 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: x86/mm/pageattr: Code without effect? |
| |
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:28:47PM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote: > To enforce the PSE bit here sounds reasonably right. And also apply > canon_pgprot, too. GLOBAL I don't know for sure.
Well sure, you don't want to flush those from the TLB if it is kernel memory since it is mapped in every process AFAICT.
> By the way there is a usage of new_prot a bit down of > try_preserve_large_page which probably should be changed into > req_prot, too. That was enforcing the canon_pgprot before the change. > So that may be considered a regression to before.
Which one?
Actually, after Andrea's patch it all makes sense - we initialize new_prot from req_prot *after* all protections checks. new_prot are, IMHO, the final protection bits which we are actually going to change.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --
| |