[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] extable cleanup
>On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Fairly straightforward consolidation of extable handling. Sparc64 is
>> trickiest, with its extable range stuff (ideally, the ranges would be
>> in a separate __extable_range section, then the extable walking code
>> could be made common, too).
>> Only tested on x86: ppc and sparc64 written untested, others broken.
>Did you test on a true i386, which needs exception handling very early on
>to handle the test for broken WP? In other words, are all the exception
>table data structures properly initialized?
It's the other way around: a real 80386 doesn't need the early exception
handling, all other cpus need it.
The WP test works by writing to a write-protected page while at ring 0.
A real 80386 ignores the write-protected bit, later x86 cpus honor it
and cause a page fault.

Rusty, against which kernel is the patch you have posted? I've tried
both 2.5.54 and the latest bk shapshot from, I get an
patch error in kernel/extable.c.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.037 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site