[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170105192910.q26ozg4ci4i3j2ai@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 22:29:10 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT_VADDR
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:13:57AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/26/2016 05:54 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > MM would use min(RLIMIT_VADDR, TASK_SIZE) as upper limit of virtual
> > address available to map by userspace.
>
> What happens to existing mappings above the limit when this upper limit
> is dropped?
Nothing: we only prevent creating new mappings. All existing are not
affected.
The semantics here the same as with other resource limits.
> Similarly, why do we do with an application running with something
> incompatible with the larger address space that tries to raise the
> limit? Say, legacy MPX.
It has to know what it does. Yes, it can change limit to the point where
application is unusable. But you can to the same with other limits.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists