On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 13:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 05:33, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Modified: branches/2009R1/arch/blackfin/include/asm/mmu_context.h (6939 => > > 6940) > > > > @@ -127,17 +127,17 @@ > > unsigned long idx = page >> 5; > > unsigned long bit = 1 << (page & 31); > > > > - if (flags & VM_MAYREAD) > > + if (flags & VM_READ) > > mask[idx] |= bit; > > else > > mask[idx] &= ~bit; > > mask += page_mask_nelts; > > - if (flags & VM_MAYWRITE) > > + if (flags & VM_WRITE) > > mask[idx] |= bit; > > else > > mask[idx] &= ~bit; > > mask += page_mask_nelts; > > - if (flags & VM_MAYEXEC) > > + if (flags & VM_EXEC) > > mask[idx] |= bit; > > else > > mask[idx] &= ~bit; > > i guess the bug was that we were setting the permission based on what > was allowed and not based on what the request was for ? I guess so.
> > > Modified: branches/2009R1/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c (6939 => 6940) > > > > /* 0x23 - Data CPLB protection violation, handled here */ > > case VEC_CPLB_VL: > > info.si_code = ILL_CPLB_VI; > > - sig = SIGBUS; > > + sig = SIGSEGV; > > verbose_printk(KERN_NOTICE EXC_0x23(KERN_NOTICE)); > > CHK_DEBUGGER_TRAP_MAYBE(); > > break; > > is this really necessary to make the test pass ? we prefer to not go > changing signals generated as it means we have to update things like > traps_test, but it's ok if other arches are hitting SIGSEGV in these > cases as we want the signals generated under the Blackfin port to > match x86 and such. > -mike I can revert this change, or let it return SIGSEGV only if under MPU. I think Robin and Sonic will give answers. -Graff _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-commits mailing list [email protected] https://blackfin.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-commits
