[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160510182055.GA24868@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:20:55 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Ruslan Kabatsayev <b7.10110111@...il.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: Getting rid of dynamic TASK_SIZE (on x86, at least)
On 05/10, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> - xol_add_vma: This one is weird: uprobes really is doing something
> behind the task's back, and the addresses need to be consistent with
> the address width. I'm not quite sure what to do here.
It can use mm->task_size instead, plus this is just a hint. And perhaps
mm->task_size should have more users, say get_unmapped_area...
Not sure we should really get rid of dynamic TASK_SIZE completely, but
personally I agree it looks a bit ugly.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists