On May 7, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Li Yang wrote:
> Check the user/supervisor execution permission base on the code address.
> This fixes the following oops on module loading or removing.
>
> Unable to handle kernel paging request for instruction fetch
> Faulting instruction address: 0xf938d040
> Oops:
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 14:14 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On May 7, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Li Yang wrote:
>
> > Check the user/supervisor execution permission base on the code address.
> > This fixes the following oops on module loading or removing.
> >
> > Unable to handle kernel paging request for inst
> I've updated the commit message to be a bit more clear on why
> we need to do this.
I'm curious why the _PAGE_EXEC have different definition in pte-book3e.h
and pte-fsl-booke.h?
It is UX permission in pte-book3e, but is SX permission in
pte-fsl-booke.h.
Thanks, Dave
__
> Not looking at the code right now ... but do we have the same
> issue on 64e ?
Aaron pointed the issue on FSL BookE.
http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2010-January/079738.html
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
ht
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 14:14 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On May 7, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Li Yang wrote:
>
> > Check the user/supervisor execution permission base on the code address.
> > This fixes the following oops on module loading or removing.
> >
> > Unable to handle kernel paging request for inst
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 08:53 +0800, Liu Dave-R63238 wrote:
> > I've updated the commit message to be a bit more clear on why
> > we need to do this.
>
> I'm curious why the _PAGE_EXEC have different definition in pte-book3e.h
> and pte-fsl-booke.h?
>
> It is UX permission in pte-book3e, but is SX
On May 13, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 14:14 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On May 7, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Li Yang wrote:
>>
>>> Check the user/supervisor execution permission base on the code address.
>>> This fixes the following oops on module loading or
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 10:16 +0800, Liu Dave-R63238 wrote:
> > Not looking at the code right now ... but do we have the same
> > issue on 64e ?
>
> Aaron pointed the issue on FSL BookE.
> http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2010-January/079738.html
Right, but I think 64-bit BookE has t
> > Aaron pointed the issue on FSL BookE.
> >
> http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2010-January/079738.htm
> > l
>
> Right, but I think 64-bit BookE has the same issue. We can
> fix that later tho.
Ben,
We also find the _PAGE_USER is different between pte-book3e and old
fsl-booke
I
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 17:14 +0800, Liu Dave-R63238 wrote:
> > > Aaron pointed the issue on FSL BookE.
> > >
> > http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2010-January/079738.htm
> > > l
> >
> > Right, but I think 64-bit BookE has the same issue. We can
> > fix that later tho.
>
> Ben,
>
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
