[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140724192152.GC17876@moon>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:21:52 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc 1/4] mm: Introduce may_adjust_brk helper
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:18:56PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > +static inline int may_adjust_brk(unsigned long rlim,
> > + unsigned long new_brk,
> > + unsigned long start_brk,
> > + unsigned long end_data,
> > + unsigned long start_data)
> > +{
> > + if (rlim < RLIMIT_DATA) {
>
> Won't rlim always be the value from a call to rlimit(RLIMIT_DATA)? Is
> there a good reason to not just put the rlimit() call in
> may_adjust_brk()? This would actually be an optimization in the
> prctl_set_mm case, since now it calls rlimit() unconditionally, but
> doesn't need to.
Nope, we use it for rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) when checking for
@start_stack member.
--
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