From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:18:30 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown vs stack reservations Message-ID: <259380000.1092809909@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <20040818061121.GB21740@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <170170000.1092781114@flay> <20040818061121.GB21740@devserv.devel.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-mm mailing list List-ID: --Arjan van de Ven wrote (on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 08:11:21 +0200): > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:18:34PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> I worry that the current code will allow us to intrude into the >> reserved stack space with a vma allocation if it's requested at >> an address too high up. One could argue that they got what they >> asked for ... but not sure we should be letting them do that? > > well even the non-flexmmap code allows this... Yeah, wasn't meant as a criticism of the new layout, just a general improvement, perhaps. > what is the problem ? Just that if they allocate right up to the stack, we'll go boom shortly afterwards. I guess the question is ... what exactly are the rules for stack space reservations? M. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org