On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:12:59AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > have a PROT_READONLY/PROT_NONE area that is visible from the debugger, but
> > continues to cause SIGSEGV's if the user process itself tries to access
> > it. To me, that's good.
>
> Continue to cause sigsegv yes, but on the wrong page, when it will read
> the page it can contain different data compared to what is on
> disk/pagecache.
So? You're not making any sense.
I repeat: we CANNOT AVOID the fact that we will do COW.
That COW is required. No way we can avoid it. It has _nothing_ to do with
maybe_mkwrite().
So I don't know why you continually refuse to just admit that fact. Why do
you mix up the COW semantics with the maybe_mkwrite() semantics.
If you can't argue against maybe_mkwrite() without involving the COW
argument, then stop arguing. They are two totally different thigns.
Linus
-
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]
| |
 |