Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:24:03 +0300
From: Igor Stoppa <>
To: Randy Dunlap <>,
 Mimi Zohar <>, Kees Cook <>,
 Matthew Wilcox <>, Dave Chinner <>,
 James Morris <>, Michal Hocko <>,,,
Cc:, Dave Hansen <>,
 Jonathan Corbet <>, Laura Abbott <>,
 Vlastimil Babka <>,
 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
 Andrew Morton <>,
 Pavel Tatashin <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] prmem: test cases for memory protection


On 24/10/18 06:27, Randy Dunlap wrote:

> a. It seems backwards (or upside down) to have a test case select a feature (PRMEM)
> instead of depending on that feature.
> b. Since PRMEM depends on MMU (in patch 04/17), the "select" here could try to
> enabled PRMEM even when MMU is not enabled.
> Changing this to "depends on PRMEM" would solve both of these issues.

The weird dependency you pointed out is partially caused by the 
incompleteness of PRMEM.

What I have in mind is to have a fallback version of it for systems 
without MMU capable of write protection.
Possibly defaulting to kvmalloc.
In that case there would not be any need for a configuration option.

> c. Don't use "default n".  That is already the default.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.