Re: UVM and the NULL page

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 07:12:31PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> 
> For what it is worth, I do believe that the handling of the 0 page
> should be part of UVM and not pmap. I am only objection to forcing it
> unconditionally.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought we were all already agreed that
conditionalizing this upon a sysctl that could be set only when the
system is at insecure runlevel was an acceptable thing to do.  I
mean, that's *one read of an integer* per check; surely that must
be acceptable -- Max?

If that is the case, are we really all arguing with no disagreement?

Thor