On 08/25, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/25, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > > And I think I'll let Linus's guard page justify your 4 (to match comment)
> > > in place of the original's mysterious 5.
> >
> > Ah, thanks again. Yes, if we want to guarantee 4 p
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/25, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > And I think I'll let Linus's guard page justify your 4 (to match comment)
> > in place of the original's mysterious 5.
>
> Ah, thanks again. Yes, if we want to guarantee 4 pages we should check 5.
>
> Although obviou
On 08/25, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/24, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd say it comes earlier, from Christoph Rohland's 2.4.17-pre7's
> > > "Add missing checks on shmat()", though I didn't find more than that.
> > >
> > > We can all understand wa
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/24, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > I'd say it comes earlier, from Christoph Rohland's 2.4.17-pre7's
> > "Add missing checks on shmat()", though I didn't find more than that.
> >
> > We can all understand wanting to leave a gap below the growsdown stack
On 08/24, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/23, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:43:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > The ->start_stack check in do_shmat() looks ugly and simply wrong.
> > > >
> > > > 1. ->start_stack is
On 08/24, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> On 08/23/2014 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> The ->start_stack check in do_shmat() looks ugly and simply wrong.
>>
>> 1. ->start_stack is only valid right after exec(), the application
>> can switch to another stack and even unmap this area.
>>
>> 2. The r
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/23, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:43:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > The ->start_stack check in do_shmat() looks ugly and simply wrong.
> > >
> > > 1. ->start_stack is only valid right after exec(), the application
On 08/23/2014 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
The ->start_stack check in do_shmat() looks ugly and simply wrong.
1. ->start_stack is only valid right after exec(), the application
can switch to another stack and even unmap this area.
2. The reason for this check is not clear at all. The appl
On 08/23, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:43:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > The ->start_stack check in do_shmat() looks ugly and simply wrong.
> >
> > 1. ->start_stack is only valid right after exec(), the application
> >can switch to another stack and even unmap thi
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:43:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> The ->start_stack check in do_shmat() looks ugly and simply wrong.
>
> 1. ->start_stack is only valid right after exec(), the application
>can switch to another stack and even unmap this area.
>
> 2. The reason for this check is
The ->start_stack check in do_shmat() looks ugly and simply wrong.
1. ->start_stack is only valid right after exec(), the application
can switch to another stack and even unmap this area.
2. The reason for this check is not clear at all. The application
should know what it does. And why 4 p
11 matches
Mail list logo
