linux-kernel - Re: Re : vm: weird behaviour when munmapping

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1163773268.5968.122.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:21:08 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	moreau francis <francis_moreau2000@...oo.fr>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re : vm: weird behaviour when munmapping

On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 14:12 +0000, moreau francis wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > No indeed. You seem confused with remaining and new. 
> > 
> > It has one VMA (A) it needs to split that into two pieces, it happens to
> > do it like (B,A') where A' is the old VMA object with new a start
> > address, and B is a new VMA object.
> 
> Is there any rules to decide which VMA is the new one ? 

The new object is the one allocated using:
	new = kmem_cache_alloc(vm_area_cachep, SLAB_KERNEL);

> From what you wrote it seems that we call B the new object because
> it has a new end address...

No, because its newly allocated.

> From my point of view, I called B the old VMA simply because it's
> going to be destroyed...

Please read Mel Gorman's book on memory management to gain a better
understanding.

http://www.phptr.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0131453483&rl=1


-
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/