[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAHN_R1u_btMuF+WhHu0G895EJ=mbOPNRp7NcXEgTKv3Vs-B1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:38:33 +0530
From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@...il.com>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mark thread stack correctly in proc/<pid>/maps
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org> wrote:
> Is there a reason the names aren't consistent - i.e. not vma_is_stack_guard()?
Ah, that was an error on my part; I did not notice the naming convention.
> How about simply calling it vma_is_guard(), return 1 if it's PROT_NONE
> without checking vma_is_stack() or ->vm_next/prev, and annotate the
> maps output like this:
>
> is_stack => "[stack]"
> is_guard & is_stack => "[stack guard]"
> is_guard & !is_stack => "[guard]"
>
> What do you think?
Thanks for the review. We're already marking permissions in the maps
output to convey protection, so isn't marking those vmas as [guard]
redundant?
Following that, we could just mark the thread stack guard as [stack]
without any permissions. The process stack guard page probably
deserves the [stack guard] label since it is marked differently from
the thread stack guard and will otherwise have the permissions that
the process stack has. Will that be good?
--
Siddhesh Poyarekar
--
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