[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 071/149] ARM: 6166/1: Proper prefetch abort handling on pre-ARMv6
    On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:48:37PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
    > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:25:41AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
    > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 03:17:28PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > > > We (well, I) like to keep the commit log identical to what is upstream
    > > > just to make things easier all around. Otherwise people start asking
    > > > for spelling fixes, clarifications, and all sorts of other stuff (like
    > > > this.)
    > >
    > > Ok, fair enough.
    > >
    > > I asked for it because I was confused by this commit message while
    > > investigate (the same) problem on ARMv7 CPU.
    > You shouldn't get anywhere near this on ARMv7, because we know the cause
    > of the prefetch abort on those CPUs.
    > On pre-ARMv6 CPUs, we always treat all prefetch aborts as a translation
    > faults. The problem which this commit addresses occurs when userspace
    > tries to execute code above TASK_SIZE - we're sent into a loop of prefetch
    > aborts (because we are unable to determine that it is a permission fault.)
    > ARMv6 and ARMv7 CPUs have an instruction fault status register, which
    > tells us why the abort happened. On these CPUs, permission faults go
    > nowhere near the translation fault handler.

    I know it. I was involved in writing this code.

    > One possibility is that for some reason you're using the legacy prefetch
    > abort code or pre-IFSR code, which will always tell the kernel that its
    > a translation fault - and in this case, this patch would improve the
    > situation. What kernel version are you using?


    > The commit message is accurate for the kernel version to which it was
    > originally applied.

    Simple testcase:

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <sys/types.h>
    #include <sys/stat.h>
    #include <fcntl.h>

    int main(int argc, char **argv)
    int fd;
    void (*p)(void);

    fd = open("/dev/urandom", O_RDONLY);
    read(0, &p, sizeof(p));
    printf("p: %p\n", p);
    return 0;

    If you run this test in loop on kernel without the patch you'll finally
    get hung instead SIGSEGV.

    It seems the patch fixes more than it was written for. :)

    Kirill A. Shutemov

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-07-02 01:01    [W:0.020 / U:29.304 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site