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: <38b2ab8a0611210041o2f5d251ale17082b951a90abb@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:41:22 +0100
From:	"Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@...il.com>
To:	"Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re : vm: weird behaviour when munmapping

On 11/20/06, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Francis Moreau wrote:
> >
> > I end up to see "open(B), close(B)" sequence when unmapping a part of
> > the dumb device that I found strange. I think that "open(A') close(B)"
> > can give more information to the driver and reflect that B is unmapped
> > and A' is still mapped and becomes the new mapped area.
> > But it's may be just me...
>
> I think I do now get your point.  But your way round doesn't really

my fault, I think I wasn't very clear when explaining myself

> reflect what's going on either: the range A' was already open and now
> you open it again.  Until there's some driver actually needing more
> sophisticated treatment, let's just leave it the simple way it is.

Yes, I agree that both ways are not satisfacting. Maybe having
vma->resize() method would have been better, I dunno.

Anyways thanks for your answers.
-- 
Francis
-
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/