[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check
>>> On 14.12.17 at 15:04, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote: >> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru >> >> #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1 >> >> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t >> addr, unsigned long P) >> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t >> addr, >> + pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P) >> { >> int i; >> pmd_t *start, *pmd_start; >> - pgprotval_t prot; >> + pgprotval_t prot, eff; >> >> pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr); >> for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) { >> st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT); >> if (!pmd_none(*start)) { >> + prot = pmd_flags(*start); >> + eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot); >> if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) { >> - prot = pmd_flags(*start); >> - note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4); >> + note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4); >> } else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) { >> - walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, >> + walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff, >> P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT); >> } > > You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar > constructs below, too. I did consider that, but decided against to allow the patch to show more clearly what it is that is actually being changed. > With that fixed you can add my: > > Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> Thanks. I'd like to wait for the x86 maintainer's opinion, and hence won't add your R-b unless you tell me that's fine either way, or unless they too would prefer resulting code cleanliness over patch readability. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |