[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282322101.12544.25.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:35:01 +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 17:32 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> 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 :-(
On the other hand the VMA merging is just an optimisation, isn't it?
--
Ian Campbell
Many people are desperately looking for some wise advice which will
recommend that they do what they want to do.
--
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