Re: Getting rid of dynamic TASK_SIZE (on x86, at least)

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 05/10, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>  - xol_add_vma: This one is weird: uprobes really is doing something
> behind the task's back, and the addresses need to be consistent with
> the address width.  I'm not quite sure what to do here.

It can use mm->task_size instead, plus this is just a hint. And perhaps
mm->task_size should have more users, say get_unmapped_area...

Not sure we should really get rid of dynamic TASK_SIZE completely, but
personally I agree it looks a bit ugly.

Oleg.