On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
> OK, here's some revised text for patch 00/10. Again, this will
> obviously be updated for the next post, but comments before that would
> be much appreciated.
That looks good. So much of this wants to end up in documentation as
well.
Thanks,
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 12:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Yes, the most important question is WHY must the kernel handle the
> > bound table memory allocation in the first place. The "documentation"
> > patch completely fails to tell that.
>
> This will become
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Yes, the most important question is WHY must the kernel handle the
bound table memory allocation in the first place. The documentation
patch completely fails to tell that.
This will become the
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
OK, here's some revised text for patch 00/10. Again, this will
obviously be updated for the next post, but comments before that would
be much appreciated.
That looks good. So much of this wants to end up in documentation as
well.
Thanks,
tglx
OK, here's some revised text for patch 00/10. Again, this will
obviously be updated for the next post, but comments before that would
be much appreciated.
-
This patch set adds support for the Memory Protection eXtensions
(MPX) feature found in future Intel processors. MPX is used in
On 09/12/2014 12:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> +When #BR fault is produced due to invalid entry, bounds table will be
>> +created in kernel on demand and kernel will not transfer this fault to
>> +userspace. So usersapce can't receive #BR fault for
On 09/12/2014 12:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Yes, the most important question is WHY must the kernel handle the
> bound table memory allocation in the first place. The "documentation"
> patch completely fails to tell that.
This will become the description of "patch 04/10". Feel free to wait
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 09/11/2014 01:46 AM, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
> > MPX kernel code, namely this patchset, has mainly the 2 responsibilities:
> > provide handlers for bounds faults (#BR), and manage bounds memory.
>
> Qiaowei, We probably need to mention here what "bounds
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 09/11/2014 01:46 AM, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
MPX kernel code, namely this patchset, has mainly the 2 responsibilities:
provide handlers for bounds faults (#BR), and manage bounds memory.
Qiaowei, We probably need to mention here what bounds memory is,
On 09/12/2014 12:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Yes, the most important question is WHY must the kernel handle the
bound table memory allocation in the first place. The documentation
patch completely fails to tell that.
This will become the description of patch 04/10. Feel free to wait
until
On 09/12/2014 12:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
+When #BR fault is produced due to invalid entry, bounds table will be
+created in kernel on demand and kernel will not transfer this fault to
+userspace. So usersapce can't receive #BR fault for invalid
OK, here's some revised text for patch 00/10. Again, this will
obviously be updated for the next post, but comments before that would
be much appreciated.
-
This patch set adds support for the Memory Protection eXtensions
(MPX) feature found in future Intel processors. MPX is used in
On 09/11/2014 01:46 AM, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
> MPX kernel code, namely this patchset, has mainly the 2 responsibilities:
> provide handlers for bounds faults (#BR), and manage bounds memory.
Qiaowei, We probably need to mention here what "bounds memory" is, and
why it has to be managed, and who is
This patchset adds support for the Memory Protection Extensions
(MPX) feature found in future Intel processors.
MPX can be used in conjunction with compiler changes to check memory
references, for those references whose compile-time normal intentions
are usurped at runtime due to buffer overflow
On 09/11/2014 01:46 AM, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
MPX kernel code, namely this patchset, has mainly the 2 responsibilities:
provide handlers for bounds faults (#BR), and manage bounds memory.
Qiaowei, We probably need to mention here what bounds memory is, and
why it has to be managed, and who is
This patchset adds support for the Memory Protection Extensions
(MPX) feature found in future Intel processors.
MPX can be used in conjunction with compiler changes to check memory
references, for those references whose compile-time normal intentions
are usurped at runtime due to buffer overflow
16 matches
Mail list logo
