On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:51:52AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > It's not just for cosmetic reasons that I suggest to change this. My > point is that the _real_ reason why we had the bug in the first place is > that people forgets that p->size includes the guard page (because it > shouldn't include the guard page). The fundamental problem of vmalloc > exposing the guard page to the callers (which makes it prone for > mistakes, and prone for breakage if somebody needs all virtual space and > removes the guard page), isn't solved yet.
Strongly agree with you. I remember this nuisance from large-page-patch days: the guard page (if any) really should be an implementation detail private to mm/vmalloc.c, never exposed outside. > > No problem with changing it, but hopefully after 2.6.11. > > Ok fine with me, take your time it's clearly not urgent because in > practice no bug can be triggered anymore ;). thanks! Yes, not urgent. The instance of exposure I remember is one of the PAGE_SIZEs in fs/proc/kcore.c. Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/