[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:22:39 +0200 (EET)
From: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@...ia.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: fix /proc/<pid>/maps heap check
Hi,
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>>>> The current check looks wrong and prints "[heap]" only if the mapping
>>>> matches exactly the heap. However, the heap may be merged with some
>>>> other mappings, and there may be also be multiple mappings.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@...ia.com>
>>>> Cc: stable@...nel.org
>
> [...]
>
>> Your description said,
>> the heap may be merged with some other mappings,
>> ^^^^^^
>> but your example is splitting case. not merge. In other words, your
>> patch care splitting case but break merge case.
>>
>> Ok, we have no obvious correct behavior. This is debatable. So,
>> Why do you think vma splitting case is important than merge?
>
> Sorry, I was unclear.
>
> The current behaviour is wrong for both merged and split cases, and I
> think the patch fixes both.
Argh, this is confusing. The current check:
vma->vm_start <= mm->start_brk && vma->vm_end >= mm->brk
obviously works with the merged case. The patch changes this to:
vma->vm_start <= mm->brk && vma->vm_end >= mm->start_brk
This works with the split case, but it does not break the merged case
(or do I miss something still?).
So the current behaviour is broken only with the splitting case. I will
correct the patch description and resend it.
A.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists