RE: [patch] arch hook for notifying changes in PTE protections bits

David S. Miller wrote on Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:27 PM: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:30:05 -0800 > David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I agree about your concern about cost. Accessing the page_map is >> expensive (integer division + memory access) and we hav

RE: [patch] arch hook for notifying changes in PTE protections bits

David S. Miller wrote on Friday, March 18, 2005 8:06 PM: > > Take a look at set_pte_at(). You get the "mm", the > virtual address, the pte pointer, and the new pte value. > Thanks for pointing out the updated interface in 2.6.12-* kernel. I think I can overload the

[patch] arch hook for notifying changes in PTE protections bits

Below is the description that I described couple of days back in a mail about the stale data issue on IA-64. Seth, Rohit <> wrote on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:44 AM: > Recently on IA-64, we have found an issue where old data could be used > by apps. The sequence of operations

RE: Mprotect needs arch hook for updated PTE settings

Zoltan Menyhart <> wrote on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:58 AM: > The text segment can be huge. There is no reason to flush all the text > segment every time when ld-linux-ia64.so.* patches an instruction and > changes the protection. > You flush only the pages that got written and thus marked fo

Mprotect needs arch hook for updated PTE settings

Recently on IA-64, we have found an issue where old data could be used by apps. The sequence of operations includes few mprotects from user space (glibc) goes like this: 1- The text region of an executable is mmaped using PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC. As a result, a shared page is allocated to user. 2- U

RE: possible CPU bug and request for Intel contacts

Kirill Korotaev wrote on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 6:12 AM: > Hello Rohit, > >>> BTW, can you explain why making pages non-global is the cure? Is it >>> safe workaround for this bug? >> There is a boundary condition that can have non-global pages >> containing the CR3

RE: possible CPU bug and request for Intel contacts

Kirill Korotaev wrote on Monday, January 24, 2005 1:51 AM: > Hello Rohit, > >> Thanks for sending the detailed information. Based on our experiments >> and analysis, we believe at this point that this is a known E80 issue >> mentioned in the PIII spec update at this loc

RE: possible CPU bug and request for Intel contacts

Pavel Machek wrote on Saturday, January 22, 2005 2:03 AM: > Hi! > >> Here are the details about CPU bug I mentioned in my previous post. >> Though it turned out later that it happens on P-III systems only I >> still hope it can be of interest. > > What about Pentium-M?

RE: possible CPU bug and request for Intel contacts

Hello Kirill, Thanks for sending the detailed information. Based on our experiments and analysis, we believe at this point that this is a known E80 issue mentioned in the PIII spec update at this location (http://www.intel.com/design/pentiumiii/specupdt/24445351.pdf) Could you please try one of t