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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611201135120.10479@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:36:50 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>
cc:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re : vm: weird behaviour when munmapping

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Francis Moreau wrote:
> On 11/18/06, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:
> >
> > split_vma decides which address range will use the newly allocated
> > vm_area_struct in such a way as to suit its own convenience, and
> 
> again I don't agree. I would say that do_munmap() decides which
> address range will use the new allocated vma object. split_vma() get
> this information through its parameter named "new_below".

Yes, you're right.

Hugh
-
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/