On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Anyway, here's the current patch:
Ok, I think I like this approach better.
Your FAULT_FLAG_EXEC handling is wrong, though. It shouldn't check
VM_WRITE, it should check VM_EXEC. A bit too much copy-paste ;)
Btw, it's quite possible that we could just do all the PF_PROT
handling at the x86 level, before even calling the generic fault
handler. It's not like we even need the vma or the mm semaphore: if
it's a non-write protection fault, we always SIGSEGV. So why even
bother getting the locks and looking up the page tables etc?
Now, that PF_PROT handling isn't exactly performance-critical, but it
might help to remove the odd x86 special case from the generic code.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>