Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com> writes: > [ text/plain ] > > > On 27/03/16 19:23, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Subpage protection used to depend on _PAGE_USER bit to implement no >> access mode. This patch switch that to use _PAGE_RWX. We clear READ, >> Write and Execute access from pte instead of clearing _PAGE_USER now. >> This was done so that we can switch to _PAGE_PRIVILEGED in later patch. >> subpage_protection() returns pte bits that need to be cleared. > Could you please clarify what bit needs to be cleared. I think the underlying > assumption is that when this routine is called access cannot be _PAGE_RWX
I didn't follow the question. subpage_protection() returns the pte bits that need to be cleared for a specific access depending on the subpage prot mask we set using subpage_prot syscall. >> Instead of updating the interface to handle no-access in a separate way, >> it appears simple to clear RWX acecss to indicate no access. >> -aneesh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
