Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

>>> On 20.02.18 at 11:17, wrote: > I assume the Xen fix got merged meanwhile? Yes (that's the commit I've referred to in an earlier reply). Jan

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

>>> On 20.02.18 at 11:17, wrote: > I assume the Xen fix got merged meanwhile? Yes (that's the commit I've referred to in an earlier reply). Jan

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

* Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 20.02.18 at 09:37, wrote: > > > * Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >> I'll see what I can do; it's a pity that the change here, which had > >> been sent weeks ago and is a bug fix, hadn't gone in before that > >>

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

* Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 20.02.18 at 09:37, wrote: > > > * Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >> I'll see what I can do; it's a pity that the change here, which had > >> been sent weeks ago and is a bug fix, hadn't gone in before that > >> other change (being more an improvement than a bug fix).

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

>>> On 20.02.18 at 09:37, wrote: > * Jan Beulich wrote: > >> I'll see what I can do; it's a pity that the change here, which had >> been sent weeks ago and is a bug fix, hadn't gone in before that >> other change (being more an improvement than a bug fix).

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

>>> On 20.02.18 at 09:37, wrote: > * Jan Beulich wrote: > >> I'll see what I can do; it's a pity that the change here, which had >> been sent weeks ago and is a bug fix, hadn't gone in before that >> other change (being more an improvement than a bug fix). > > When was it submitted, got a

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

* Jan Beulich wrote: > I'll see what I can do; it's a pity that the change here, which had > been sent weeks ago and is a bug fix, hadn't gone in before that > other change (being more an improvement than a bug fix). When was it submitted, got a link or Message-ID of the

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

* Jan Beulich wrote: > I'll see what I can do; it's a pity that the change here, which had > been sent weeks ago and is a bug fix, hadn't gone in before that > other change (being more an improvement than a bug fix). When was it submitted, got a link or Message-ID of the previous submission?

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

* Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 20.02.18 at 09:10, wrote: > > * Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning > >> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry. > >

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

* Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 20.02.18 at 09:10, wrote: > > * Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning > >> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry. > > > > Under what circumstances did you see false positive

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

>>> On 20.02.18 at 09:10, wrote: > * Jan Beulich wrote: >> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning >> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry. > > Under what circumstances did you see false positive

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

>>> On 20.02.18 at 09:10, wrote: > * Jan Beulich wrote: >> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning >> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry. > > Under what circumstances did you see false positive warnings? As explained in the

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

* Jan Beulich wrote: > Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning > in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry. Under what circumstances did you see false positive warnings? > Hand through both the current entry's flags

Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

* Jan Beulich wrote: > Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning > in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry. Under what circumstances did you see false positive warnings? > Hand through both the current entry's flags as well as the