On 8/8/23 09:59, Alex Bennée wrote:
All of this is part of the "legacy" memory layout, for which there is a
personality flag.
For 8.2, I think we should work on implementing the "new" memory
layout, which places everything top-down. But most importantly it
completely separates brk from the bin
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 8/8/23 02:10, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> One thing I'm slightly confused by is the ELF_ET_DYN_BASE can be above
>> this (or sometimes the same). Should the mapping of ELF segments be
>> handled with mmap_next_start? I assume once mmap_next_start meets the
>> mappings f
Hi Richard,
On 8/7/23 18:36, Richard Henderson wrote:
Ensure that the chosen values for mmap_next_start and
task_unmapped_base are within the guest address space.
Tested-by: Helge Deller
Reviewed-by: Akihiko Odaki
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
I've tested this whole series for quite som
On 8/8/23 02:10, Alex Bennée wrote:
One thing I'm slightly confused by is the ELF_ET_DYN_BASE can be above
this (or sometimes the same). Should the mapping of ELF segments be
handled with mmap_next_start? I assume once mmap_next_start meets the
mappings for the ELF segments we skip over until we
Richard Henderson writes:
> Ensure that the chosen values for mmap_next_start and
> task_unmapped_base are within the guest address space.
>
> Tested-by: Helge Deller
> Reviewed-by: Akihiko Odaki
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
> ---
> linux-user/user-mmap.h | 18 +-
> li
Ensure that the chosen values for mmap_next_start and
task_unmapped_base are within the guest address space.
Tested-by: Helge Deller
Reviewed-by: Akihiko Odaki
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
---
linux-user/user-mmap.h | 18 +-
linux-user/main.c | 28 +
