On 22.02.2008 [17:42:58 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Nish,
>
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 2. Must have address space randomization turned on for i386 and x86_64.
If this is the case, shouldn't you be checking the sysctl in stack.c?
Then we just make the feature depend on the sys
Nish,
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
2. Must have address space randomization turned on for i386 and x86_64.
>>> If this is the case, shouldn't you be checking the sysctl in stack.c?
>>> Then we just make the feature depend on the sysctl's value.
>> I'd prefer not to do this -- if my kernel patch
On 22.02.2008 [14:20:13 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Nish,
>
> Thanks for the review!
No problem, thanks for working on this code, I think it's a useful
feature.
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>> On 05.02.2008 [15:06:22 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
>>> Remap stack on hugepages if HUGETLB_STAC
On 22.02.2008 [14:20:13 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Nish,
>
> Thanks for the review!
Another quick thought: we recently changed elflink.c to fork() to do the
hugetlbfs copying. Would such a change be useful in the stack remapping
code? That would avoid some of the address space pollution iss
Nish,
Thanks for the review!
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 05.02.2008 [15:06:22 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
>> Remap stack on hugepages if HUGETLB_STACK is set in the environment.
>>
>> Caveats:
>> 1. Hugepage stack does not grow or shrink.
>
> Ok, this may not be a problem we need to addre
> We maintain a set of detailed functionality tests for hugepages in
> libhugetlbfs. Any time you are looking for new tests to add to LTP,
> feel free to check the source code.
Adam/Nishant,
I am not sure if i found the test cases for this. Can you please provide
me more pointers on this? Recent
