On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:27:31PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:22:40PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > Your stack example is a good one: if we end up setting VM_DONTCOPY on
> > > the user stack, then I don't think fork's child will get very far without
> > > hitting a SIGSEGV.
> >
> > I know, but I prefer child SIGSEGV than silent data corruption.
>
> Most people will share your preference, but neither is satisfactory.
>
What about the idea that was floating around about new VM flag that will
instruct kernel to copy pages belonging to the vma on fork instead of mark
them as cow?
> > In most cases child will exec immediately after fork so no problem
> > in this case.
>
> In most(?) cases it won't even be able to exec before the SIGSEGV.
>
If the top of the stack belongs to not copied page then yes.
--
Gleb.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |