On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
>
> It's better in so far as it avoids the problems previously highlighted.
>
> However, it depends how efficient we want these paths to be - the
> difference between your assembly and the assembly I've previously
> supplied is that
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 10:42:14AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Garnier
> > wrote:
> >> Disable the generic address limit check in favor of an architecture
> >> specific optimized implementation. The
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> Disable the generic address limit check in favor of an architecture
>> specific optimized implementation. The generic implementation using
>> pending work flags did not work well with AR
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> Disable the generic address limit check in favor of an architecture
> specific optimized implementation. The generic implementation using
> pending work flags did not work well with ARM and alignment faults.
>
> The address limit is checked
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> Disable the generic address limit check in favor of an architecture
> specific optimized implementation. The generic implementation using
> pending work flags did not work well with ARM and alignment faults.
>
> The address limit is checked
Disable the generic address limit check in favor of an architecture
specific optimized implementation. The generic implementation using
pending work flags did not work well with ARM and alignment faults.
The address limit is checked on each syscall return path to user-mode
path as well as the irq
6 matches
Mail list logo
