2011-02-01 13:07:23

by matthieu castet

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [BUG] broken ebba638ae723d8a8fc2f7abce5ec18b688b791d7

Quoting "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>:

> On Tuesday, February 01, 2011, matthieu castet wrote:
> Well, in my not so humble opinion the amount of random fixes required by the
> entire NX protection of kernel "data" pages is simply unacceptable.

What's the relation between this bug and NX protection of kernel "data" ?

Matthieu


2011-02-01 18:51:10

by Rafael J. Wysocki

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [BUG] broken ebba638ae723d8a8fc2f7abce5ec18b688b791d7

On Tuesday, February 01, 2011, [email protected] wrote:
> Quoting "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 01, 2011, matthieu castet wrote:
> > Well, in my not so humble opinion the amount of random fixes required by the
> > entire NX protection of kernel "data" pages is simply unacceptable.
>
> What's the relation between this bug and NX protection of kernel "data" ?

Sorry, I confused threads.

Rafael