lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-05 17:59    [W:0.052 / U:1.308 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site