Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:55:14 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, David Miller wrote: |
| |
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > > > > Exactly. The access to a ro region results in a fault. I have nowhere > > > > seen that trigger, but I can reproduce the trylock() WARN_ON, which > > > > confirms that there is concurrent access to the NVRAM registers. The > > > > backtrace pattern is similar to the one you have seen. > > > are you still getting WARN_ON *with* all the mutex based fixes already > > > applied? > > > > The WARN_ON triggers with current mainline. Is there any fixlet in > > Linus tree missing ? > > > > > with the mutex patches in place (without protection patch) we are > > > still reproducing the issue, until we apply the set_memory_ro patch. > > > > That does not make sense to me. If the memory_ro patch is providing > > _real_ protection then you _must_ run into an access violation. If not, > > then the patch just papers over the real problem in some mysterious > > way. > > > > not if the bad code is doing copy_to_user .... (or similar)
You mean: copy_from_user :) This would require that the e1000e nvram region is writable via copy_from_user by an e1000e user space interface. A quick grep does not reviel such a horrible interface.
Thanks,
tglx
| |