[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703021646050.13167@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:55:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
"Kawai, Hidehiro" <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>,
Satoshi OSHIMA <soshima@...hat.com>,
"Hideo AOKI@...hat" <haoki@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] coredump: ELF-FDPIC: enable to omit anonymous shared
memory
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, David Howells wrote:
> Robin Holt <holt@....com> wrote:
>
> > How about:
> > if (vma->vm_mm->coredump_omit_anon_shared) {
> >
> > Then the calls to maydump() would be unchanged:
>
> VMAs are a shared resource under NOMMU conditions.
That's a disturbing remark. Under precisely what NOMMU conditions?
I had thought Robin's suggestion very sensible; and throughout mm/
it has seemed pretty random whether we pass an "mm" argument down
in addition to "vma", or just take vma->vm_mm at whatever level needs.
You seem to be suggesting vma->vm_mm is dangerous when CONFIG_NOMMU,
but we MMU people are scarily unaware of that. Perhaps you need to
put #ifndef CONFIG_NOMMU around vm_mm in struct vm_area_struct?
Or am I totally misunderstanding?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists