Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, David Miller wrote:

[Arjan van de Ven]

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)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/