>>> On 21.09.17 at 16:58, wrote:
> Do you foresee potentially issue of temporarily modifying permissions of
> a mapping?
It's generally not a good idea imo, but perhaps it's fine here. I
assume the page permissions can't be adversely affected despite
their hard coding in the function invocations
Hi Jan,
On 21/09/17 13:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.09.17 at 00:31, wrote:
@@ -43,7 +46,29 @@ int arch_livepatch_quiesce(void)
return -ENOMEM;
}
-return 0;
+if ( nfuncs )
+{
+unsigned long va = (unsigned long)func;
+unsigned int offs = va & (PAGE
>>> On 21.09.17 at 00:31, wrote:
> @@ -43,7 +46,29 @@ int arch_livepatch_quiesce(void)
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> -return 0;
> +if ( nfuncs )
> +{
> +unsigned long va = (unsigned long)func;
> +unsigned int offs = va & (PAGE_SIZE - 1);
> +unsigned
This was found when porting livepatch-build-tools to ARM64/32
When livepatch-build-tools are built (and test-case thanks to:
livepatch/tests: Make sure all .livepatch.funcs sections are read-only)
the .livepatch.funcs are in read-only section.
However the hypervisor uses the 'opaque' for its own
