On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:41:17 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
wrote:
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes:
>
> > Architectures like ppc64, use privilege access bit to mark pte non
> > accessible.
> > This implies that kernel can do a copy_to_user to an address marked for
> > numa fault.
> > This also implies
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes:
> Architectures like ppc64, use privilege access bit to mark pte non accessible.
> This implies that kernel can do a copy_to_user to an address marked for numa
> fault.
> This also implies that there can be a parallel hardware update for the pte.
> set_pte_at cannot be
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:36:16PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Architectures like ppc64, use privilege access bit to mark pte non accessible.
> This implies that kernel can do a copy_to_user to an address marked for numa
> fault.
> This also implies that there can be a parallel hardware updat
On Mon, 2017-02-06 at 22:36 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Architectures like ppc64, use privilege access bit to mark pte non
> accessible.
> This implies that kernel can do a copy_to_user to an address marked
> for numa fault.
> This also implies that there can be a parallel hardware update for
Architectures like ppc64, use privilege access bit to mark pte non accessible.
This implies that kernel can do a copy_to_user to an address marked for numa
fault.
This also implies that there can be a parallel hardware update for the pte.
set_pte_at cannot be used in such scenarios. Hence switch t
5 matches
Mail list logo