On 04/30/2018 12:51 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> /*
>* Look for a protection-key-drive execute-only mapping
>* which is now being given permissions that are not
>* execute-only. Move it back to the default pkey.
>*/
> if (vma_is_pkey_exec_only(vma) && (prot != P
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:57:31AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 06:09 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> > Well :). my point is add this code and delete the other
> > code that you add later in that function.
>
> I don't think I'm understanding what your suggestion was. I looked at
> the code and
On 04/26/2018 01:55 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Hi Dave, are you planning to send the next version of this patch or
>> going with this one?
> Right, some enlightment would be appreciated. I'm lost in the dozen
> different threads discussing this back and forth.
Shakeel, thanks for the reminder!
On 04/06/2018 06:09 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> Well :). my point is add this code and delete the other
> code that you add later in that function.
I don't think I'm understanding what your suggestion was. I looked at
the code and I honestly do not think I can remove any of it.
For the plain (non-expli
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Dave Hansen
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Dave Hansen
> >
> > I got a bug report that the following code (roughly) was
> > causing a SIGSEGV:
> >
> > mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_EXEC);
> > mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_N
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Dave Hansen
wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> I got a bug report that the following code (roughly) was
> causing a SIGSEGV:
>
> mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_EXEC);
> mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE);
> mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ);
> *pt
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 05:47:29PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 05:09 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> >> - /*
> >> - * Look for a protection-key-drive execute-only mapping
> >> - * which is now being given permissions that are not
> >> - * execute-only. Move it back to the default pkey.
>
On 04/06/2018 05:09 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
>> -/*
>> - * Look for a protection-key-drive execute-only mapping
>> - * which is now being given permissions that are not
>> - * execute-only. Move it back to the default pkey.
>> - */
>> -if (vma_is_pkey_exec_only(vma) &&
>> -
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:27:27AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> I got a bug report that the following code (roughly) was
> causing a SIGSEGV:
>
> mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_EXEC);
> mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE);
> mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ);
>
On 03/23/2018 12:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> The fixes tag makes sense in general even if the patch is not tagged for
>> stable. It gives you immediate context and I use it a lot to look why this
>> went unnoticed or what the context of that change was.
> That said, I'm even lazier than you an
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> > On 03/23/2018 12:15 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > >> We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work
> > >> for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks,
> > >> which ensures that PROT_NON
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/23/2018 12:15 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> >> We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work
> >> for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks,
> >> which ensures that PROT_NONE now works.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Shakeel Butt
> >> Si
On 03/23/2018 12:27 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 03/23/2018 12:15 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work
for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks,
which ensures that PROT_
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/23/2018 12:15 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>>> We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work
>>> for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks,
>>> which ensures that PROT_NONE now works.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Shakeel Butt
On 03/23/2018 12:15 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work
>> for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks,
>> which ensures that PROT_NONE now works.
>>
>> Reported-by: Shakeel Butt
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen
> Should there be a 'Fixes' t
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Dave Hansen
wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> I got a bug report that the following code (roughly) was
> causing a SIGSEGV:
>
> mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_EXEC);
> mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE);
> mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ);
> *p
16 matches
Mail list logo
