[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1a647a22-e030-33d7-f81f-fccae8987610@nod.at>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 01:11:02 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
vbabka@...e.cz, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
jmarchan@...hat.com, gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, luto@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix integer overflow of VmLib
Michal,
Am 05.01.2017 um 14:49 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> If you just read the documentation:
> VmLib size of shared library code
>
> then 0 might suggest there are no shared libraries used and the code is
> statically linked
Which is IMHO not correct. So, the documentation needs a fix too.
>> Unless I misread the code, VmLib will honour any PROT_EXEC mapping.
>> So, a statically linked JIT will have VmLib > 0.
>
> yes the code behaves differently and that's why I've said that the
> reported number is not correct no matter how.
>
> Anyway, as I've said I do not see any solution without risk of
> regression while the current code is clearly wrong. If the general
> consensus is that 0 is better than explicitly documenting VmLib as the
> size of executable code and report it that way then I have no objections
> and won't stay in the way. I am not sure which poison is worse.
>
Agreed. :-)
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists