On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> I didn't realize that userspace was allowed to run with interrupts
> disabled.
It isn't, normally. You *can* try to do it by using iopl(), but it's not
practical. It's certainly not practical to expect a page fault to not
enable them again, since
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Interrupts got disabled here because do_page_fault() is an
> interrupt-disabling trap, yes?
Yes - and it has to be: we want to disable preemption and interrupts that
can fault on the vmalloc space, until we've at least saved away %cr2. We
had bugs
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 18:58 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:34:04 -0400
> Interrupts got disabled here because do_page_fault() is an
> interrupt-disabling trap, yes?
Correct.
>
> The patch looks reasonable to me: a slight reduction in interrupt-off
> latency when really wei
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:34:04 -0400
Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a minor fix, but what is currently there is essentially wrong.
> In do_page_fault, if the faulting address from user code happens to be
> in kernel address space (int *p = (int*)-1; p = 0xbed;) then the
> do_pa
This is a minor fix, but what is currently there is essentially wrong.
In do_page_fault, if the faulting address from user code happens to be
in kernel address space (int *p = (int*)-1; p = 0xbed;) then the
do_page_fault handler will jump over the local_irq_enable with the
goto bad_area_nosemap
5 matches
Mail list logo
