> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:38:21 +0200 > From: Martin Pieuchot <m...@grenadille.net> > > 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?
I'd leave the code as-is for now. I noticed your diff was removing uao_reference() calls. What is the reason for doing that?
