[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrU4me1X7oTriLgFQpTqwaebMsT5sdYZzjC=_EERXNbqzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:29:50 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Ruslan Kabatsayev <b7.10110111@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Getting rid of dynamic TASK_SIZE (on x86, at least)
On May 10, 2016 11:21 AM, "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> 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...
Ick. I hadn't noticed mm->task_size. We have a *lot* of different
indicators of task size. mm->task_size appears to have basically no
useful uses except maybe for ppc.
On x86, bitness can change without telling the kernel, and tasks
running in 64-bit mode can do 32-bit syscalls.
So maybe I should add mm->task_size to my list of things that would be
nice to remove. Or maybe I'm just tilting at windmills.
>
> 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