On 05/04/16 00:59, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > 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. What I meant is that if the subpage protection was no access, then _PAGE_RWX cannot be set in the access value. >>> 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
