From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750848AbXCZUVy (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:21:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752691AbXCZUVx (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:21:53 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.247]:16748 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751831AbXCZUVw (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:21:52 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=usRAqcfq90Zj0YgL74UThnEBH0RHbtAYEAj9NBquEXTkARpUVwYv/t4ZIkBWWAvcz6eMI1Gq9dPIOeHEcRfGFm/EuGP/cK282K8A1oJokS1321kU5vhbkQGo7/ZYFrE/HgWOrdSekqitpX3m2RQJGLUIVwV8y3WXSOOtoEXc6hY= Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0703261321h356a849am1ab617f0e732fa67@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:21:51 -0400 From: "Mike Frysinger" To: "David Howells" Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] Revoke core code: fix nommu arch compiling error bug Cc: "Pekka J Enberg" , "Andrew Morton" , bryan.wu@analog.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Hugh Dickins" , "Alan Cox" In-Reply-To: <22674.1174915478@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070326024143.a226c9b2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1174904637.32691.86.camel@roc-desktop> <6017.1174908318@redhat.com> <6791.1174909459@redhat.com> <11045.1174911764@redhat.com> <22674.1174915478@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/26/07, David Howells wrote: > [*] The FRV, for example, does have some limited protection capability - but > it is really limited and not really useful in this case. how so ? the Blackfin processor lacks a MMU but it does have a MPU (memory protection unit) which allows granularity down to 1k page sizes ... so for future releases, we plan on integrating optional support for this so that you could have processes protected from each other and the kernel protected from all the processes ... so in our case, we might actually be able to support revoking of maps because we would have that region of memory ear marked as unaccessible ... note that the Blackfin processor manuals confusingly call this aspect of the chip an "MMU" ... dont be fooled ! -mike