On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Sad, 2006-07-01 am 15:19 +0200, ysgrifennodd Bodo Eggert:
> > > unpredictably depending on the precise ordering of events on a clean
> > > page.
> >
> > You asked for a fault, and as long as the hardware supports it, you'll
> > get one (and you're supposed to). If the hardware doesn't support read
> > faults on mapped pages, you may not get all the read faults you want. The
> > proposed patch makes the situation worse by disabeling the _requested_
> > failures even in situations where it can be done.
>
> The later patch as posted has no effect on such platforms
I'm talking about the affected platforms.
> because it
> does not touch anything but the architecture code. Without that its
> random what happens because the CPU cannot enforce write only but the
> fault handler tries to. That means if you fault reading because the page
> is not present you may get a fault while if you access a page which is
> present you won't get a fault.
IMO it's the best we can get, even if the results are ...
> That gets quite random and has bizarre effects.
OTOH, there is not much difference between randomly wrong and consistently
wrong, so I shall be happy either way (as if it would even matter).
--
'Calm down -- it's only ones and zeros.'
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
