latent problem in free_init_pages()
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [RESEND PATCH][tip:sched/core] sched: clean AFFINE_WAKEUPS feature
Next: [PATCH] x86, amd: Restrict usage of c1e_idle()
From: Jan Beulich on 19 Mar 2010 06:30 The calls to set_memory_rw() and set_memory_np() that both of you added for 2.6.25 imply that both "begin" and "end" are page aligned. This isn't the case, however, for the initrd and SMP locks. While at present this doesn't appear to do any harm, it partly subverts the debugging effect of the latter change and would result in a real issue if the .smp_locks section was moved into the read-only portion of the kernel image (where it really belongs imo). Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Arjan van de Ven on 19 Mar 2010 10:10
On 3/19/2010 3:25, Jan Beulich wrote: > The calls to set_memory_rw() and set_memory_np() that both of you > added for 2.6.25 imply that both "begin" and "end" are page aligned. > This isn't the case, however, for the initrd and SMP locks. While at > present this doesn't appear to do any harm, it partly subverts the > debugging effect of the latter change and would result in a real issue > if the .smp_locks section was moved into the read-only portion of the > kernel image (where it really belongs imo). if you change the linker script to move the section, you should also move it to keep the end page aligned. solving that at link time (like is done now) is obviously nicer than solving it at runtime ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |