On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>
> Why do we require the !pte_dirty(pte) check? I don't get it. If a writeable
> clean pte is just fine then why do we check the dirty bit at all? Doesn't
> pte_dirty() imply pte_write()?
A _non_writable and clean pty is _also_ fine sometimes. But only if we
have broken COW and marked it dirty.
> With the additional !pte_write(pte) check (and if I haven't overlooked
> something which is not unlikely) s390 should work fine even without the
> software-dirty bit hack.
No it won't. It will just loop forever in a tight loop if somebody tries
to put a breakpoint on a read-only location.
On the other hand, this being s390, maybe nobody cares?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |