[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160511055954.GA2994@uranus.lan>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 08:59:54 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.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>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Getting rid of dynamic TASK_SIZE (on x86, at least)
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > For sure page faulting must consider what kind of fault is it.
> > Or we gonna drop such code at all?
>
> That code was bogus. (Well, it was correct unless user code had a way
> to create a funny high mapping in an otherwise 32-bit task, but it
> still should have been TASK_SIZE_MAX.) Fix sent.
OK, great!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists