Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:58:48 +0300 | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Implement personality ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT |
| |
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 05:44:31AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:25:52 +0300 > "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 10:02:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote: > > > > > > > - /* for MAP_32BIT mappings we force the legact mmap base > > > > */ > > > > - if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32) && (flags & MAP_32BIT)) > > > > + /* for MAP_32BIT mappings and ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT > > > > personality we force the > > > > + * legact mmap base > > > > + */ > > > > > > please use the customary multi-line comment style: > > > > > > /* > > > * Comment ..... > > > * ...... goes here: > > > */ > > > > > > and you might use the opportunity to fix the s/legact/legacy typo > > > as well. > > > > Ok, I'll fix it. > > > > > > > > but more generally, we already have ADDR_LIMIT_3GB support on x86. > > > > Does ADDR_LIMIT_3GB really work? > > if it's broken we should fix it.... not invent a new one. > Also, traditionally often personalities only start at exec() time iirc. > (but I could be wrong on that)
What is difference beetween ADDR_LIMIT_3GB and ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT? Probably, I implement ADDR_LIMIT_3GB, not ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT...
-- Regards, Kirill A. Shutemov + Belarus, Minsk + ALT Linux Team, http://www.altlinux.com/ [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |