From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754661Ab1G1ASc (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:18:32 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:59671 "EHLO mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753084Ab1G1AS3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:18:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1311762043.25044.679.camel@pasglop> References: <1311757190.24752.406.camel@twins> <1310717238-13857-1-git-send-email-haishan.bai@gmail.com> <1310717238-13857-2-git-send-email-haishan.bai@gmail.com> <1310725418.2586.309.camel@twins> <4E21A526.8010904@gmail.com> <1310860194.25044.17.camel@pasglop> <4b337921-d430-4b63-bc36-ad31753cf800@email.android.com> <1310912990.25044.203.camel@pasglop> <1310944453.25044.262.camel@pasglop> <1310961691.25044.274.camel@pasglop> <4E23D728.7090406@gmail.com> <1310972462.25044.292.camel@pasglop> <4E23E02C.8090401@gmail.com> <1310974591.25044.298.camel@pasglop> <4E24FA51.70602@gmail.com> <1311049762.25044.392.camel@pasglop> <1311753513.25044.663.camel@pasglop> <20368.1311761379@redhat.com> <1311761831.24752.413.camel@twins> <1311762043.25044.679.camel@pasglop> From: Mike Frysinger Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:12:32 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] mm/futex: Fix futex writes on archs with SW tracking of dirty & young To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Peter Zijlstra , David Howells , Shan Hai , paulus@samba.org, tglx@linutronix.de, walken@google.com, cmetcalf@tilera.com, tony.luck@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:20, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Hoping the BUG() isn't trippable by userspace but then it's no mmu, it's > not like we care what userspace can do right :-) side note ... common misconception that "no mmu" == "no memory protection". a few of the nommu processors have memory protection, just no virtual<->physical translation. thanks for the patch ! -mike