Re: [PATCH 1/1] Implement shared page tables

From: Hugh Dickins (hugh_at_veritas.com)
Date: 08/31/05

  • Next message: Brian King: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] block: CFQ refcounting fix" 
    Date:	Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:42:38 +0100 (BST)
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 12:44 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
    > > I was going to say, doesn't randomize_va_space take away the rest of
    > > the point? But no, it appears "randomize_va_space", as it currently
    > > appears in mainline anyway, is somewhat an exaggeration: it just shifts
    > > the stack a little, with no effect on the rest of the va space.
    >
    > it also randomizes mmaps

    Ah, via PF_RANDOMIZE, yes, thanks: so long as certain conditions are
    fulfilled - and my RLIM_INFINITY RLIMIT_STACK has been preventing it.

    And mmaps include shmats: so unless the process specifies non-NULL
    shmaddr to attach at, it'll choose a randomized address for that too
    (subject to those various conditions).

    Which is indeed a further disincentive against shared page tables.

    Hugh
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Brian King: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] block: CFQ refcounting fix"