On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:32 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> In taking about 1 here.
I'm still unconvinced that this is worth the effort. I'm okay with
killing the compat vdso entirely, and I'm okay with adding a minimal,
fully functional fix (like this patch set), but I don't really want to
add fu
In taking about 1 here.
On March 12, 2014 9:20:50 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> There is one sensible address: end of address space perhaps minus
>some small offset. Unlikely to be used by anything specific.
>
>Meh. The compat vdso
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> There is one sensible address: end of address space perhaps minus some small
> offset. Unlikely to be used by anything specific.
Meh. The compat vdso logic will end up being either:
1) Try to map at the preferred address. If it fails,
There is one sensible address: end of address space perhaps minus some small
offset. Unlikely to be used by anything specific.
On March 11, 2014 11:09:11 PM PDT, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>On Mar 11, 2014 10:02 PM, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>>
>> On 03/11/2014 03:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>
On Mar 11, 2014 10:02 PM, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> On 03/11/2014 03:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> The meat of this patch series is in patch 1. Patch 2 is split out for
>> improved bisectability.
>>
>> Changes from v1: Split into two patches and fixed a comment.
>>
>> Andy Lutomirski (2):
On 03/11/2014 03:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
The meat of this patch series is in patch 1. Patch 2 is split out for
improved bisectability.
Changes from v1: Split into two patches and fixed a comment.
Andy Lutomirski (2):
x86: Dynamically relocate the compat vdso
x86_32: Remove user bit
6 matches
Mail list logo
