Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:32:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, David Greenman <dg@root.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Possible race in i386/i386/pmap.c:pmap_copy() Message-ID: <200108250132.f7P1WfR03688@earth.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108241740190.60806-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:Thinking about this a bit more....
:doesn't each process ahve it's own PTD?, so a process could sleep and
:another could run but it would have a differnt PTD
:so they could change that PTDE with impunity
:because when teh current process runs again it get's its own
:ptd back again..
Hmm. Ok, I think you are right. APTDpde is what is being loaded
and that points into the user page table directory page, which is
per-process. So APTDpde should be per-process.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200108250132.f7P1WfR03688>