Re: [PATCH] x86 page fault handler not interrupt safe

From: Brian Gerst (bgerst@didntduck.org)
Date: Mon May 07 2001 - 09:57:20 EST

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Crash"
Previous message: Horst von Brand: "Re: page_launder() bug"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] x86 page fault handler not interrupt safe"
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] x86 page fault handler not interrupt safe"
Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] x86 page fault handler not interrupt safe"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alan Cox wrote:
> (The current -ac fix for the double vmalloc races is below. WP test makes it
> more complex than is nice)

WP test is easy to handle. Just filter out protection violations and
only take the vmalloc path if the page was not found.

- if (address >= TASK_SIZE && !(error_code & 4))
+ if (address >= TASK_SIZE && !(error_code & 5))

--

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

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Crash"
Previous message: Horst von Brand: "Re: page_launder() bug"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] x86 page fault handler not interrupt safe"
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] x86 page fault handler not interrupt safe"
Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] x86 page fault handler not interrupt safe"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 07 2001 - 21:00:24 EST