[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: expand_stack fix [was Re: 2.4.9aa3]
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:23:38PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> said:
> > My fix for the race doesn't drop the usability of GROWSDOWN that could
> > otherwise break userspace programs. I guess at least uml uses
> > growsdown vma file backed. Jeff?
> No. In neither the host kernel or UML is there a vma that's file backed and
> growsdown.
> UML process stacks are marked growsdown in UML and are file backed on the host,
> but that's not the same thing.

ok, so I guess you're doing the growsdown by hand in the uml sigsegv

So it's probably fine to allow GROWSDOWN only on anon vmas per Linus's
suggestion. I can attempt to change the race fix that way.

However about last Linus's suggestion it's not obvious to me that
dropping GROWSDOWN/UP completly and forcing a fixed virtual size of the
stack [modulo rlimit of course] is a good idea, because:

1) on 32bit platforms having big vma for the stack means reducing the
space for the dynamic mappings
2) I love not to have a virtual stack limit for software making use of
aggressive recursion.

The gap logic is very simple too.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.063 / U:1.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site