On 28/03/25(Fri) 19:53, Miod Vallat wrote: > > If this code has never been tested on pmap_kernel() then it is dead code > > and I'd rather remove it. Whoever wants to reduce the permission of the > > mapping will have to check on all architectures that this is supported. > > Well it is obvious that, because of the incorrect end address argument, > this call to uvm_map_protect() has never done anything, but it would be > nice to have the fixed call anyway.
I agree. I'm just not going to do it myself. This is a new feature. > How about keeping it within > > /* pmap_write_protect() needs fixing to cope with pmap_kernel() on x86*/ > #if !defined(__amd64__) && !defined(__i386__) > the uvm_map_protect() call > #endif > > so that other platforms, where quick inspection of their pmap code shows > they ought to behave correctly, can benefit from the sigcode page being > made read-only? I'm happy to hear that. We all agree they can benefit from such change. That said, I'm not going to test pmap features across our architectures. Can I have an ok for my diff? Or should I drop it?
