[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282321974.12544.24.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:32:54 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [2/3] mm: fix up some user-visible effects of the stack guard
page
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 09:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Actually, thinking some more about it, that may not be a good idea.
> Why? Simply because we may want to merge the vma's back together if
> you do munlock. And it won't (and mustn't) merge if the vm_flags
> differ in VM_GROWSDOWN.
>
> So I do think we want to keep VM_GROWSDOWN (and VM_GROWSUP on PA-RISC)
> even across a vma split.
I naively hacked something together and it did seem to work, but I
shared your worries about merging.
> Of course, we could set a flag whether the vma really does have a
> guard page or not.
Bits in vma->vm_flags seems to be in rather short supply :-(
> That said, it does strike me as rather odd to do VM ops on partial
> stacks. What are you doing, exactly, to hit this?
I sent a contrived test program in my other mail.
The actual use is to mlock a buffer on the stack in order to pass it to
a Xen hypercall. The contract with the hypervisor is that the pages
passed to the hypercall must be mapped.
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
Current Noise: Dinosaur Jr. - Green Mind
We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.
--
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