Re: page->mapping == 0

From: Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Date: Sun Oct 29 2000 - 15:42:37 EST


On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote:

> > I would expect problems with truncate, mmap, rename, POSIX locks, fasync,
> > ptrace and mount go unnoticed for _long_. Ditto for parts of procfs
>
> Well the ptrace one still has mysteriously breaks usermode linux against it
> on my list here. Was that ever explained. It looked like the stack got corrupted
> which is weird.

Alan, is it me or usermode port really tends to catch the stack overflows?
<thinks> How about we allocate the pages by 4, not by 2 as we do now, and
explicitly unmap the pages below the task_struct? That would still leave the
chance of stack overflow going unnoticed, but the window would be limited.

Another possibility for ptrace-related screwups: past-the-EOF check in
filemap_nopage(). I'm still not convinced that it's right. It may be, but...

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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:25 EST