Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
Hello,
to catch some memory corruption bug in our code I've modified malloc to do
mmap + mprotect - which has unfortunate effect that it creates thousands and
thousands of VMAs. Everything works (though rather slowly on kernel wit
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> Hello,
> to catch some memory corruption bug in our code I've modified malloc to do
> mmap + mprotect - which has unfortunate effect that it creates thousands and
> thousands of VMAs. Everything works (though rather slowly on kernel with
> CONFIG_VM_D
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:05:09PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> size of memory?); but I rather think validate_anon_vma has outlived its
> usefulness, and is better just removed - which gives a magnificent
Probably yes. But the most fundamental issue is that this code
probably was never meant to be
Hello,
to catch some memory corruption bug in our code I've modified malloc
to do mmap + mprotect - which has unfortunate effect that it creates
thousands and thousands of VMAs. Everything works (though rather slowly
on kernel with CONFIG_VM_DEBUG) until application does fork() - kernel
cra
4 matches
Mail list logo
