Quoting Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>:
> > All existing drivers that set VM_DONTCOPY also set VM_IO.
> > So lets just disable playing with these flags from madvise if VM_IO is set.
> > There's no reason I can see that the driver should have a say
> > on what the process does with its own (non-IO) memory.
> > Sounds good?
>
> You're then saying that a process cannot set VM_DONTCOPY on a VM_IO
> area to prevent the first child getting the area, but clear it after
> so the next child does get a copy of the area. I think it'd be wrong
> (surprising) to limit the functionality in that way.
Okay, I guess. I am just trying to avoid more VM_ flags.
Cant we get rid of the last requirement, then?
I dont see why the driver should have a say on what the process does with its
own memory.
> > By the way, as a separate issue, we still have a problem with DMA to pages
> > which are *needed* by the child process. What do you think about VM_COPY
> > (to do the old unix thing of actually copying the page instead of
> > setting the COW flag) and a matching madvise call to set/clear it?
>
> I don't much want to add another path into copy_pte_range, actually
> copying pages. If the process really wants DMA into such areas,
> then it should contain the code for the child to COW them itself?
>
> Hugh
How do you do that, say, for a stack page, or global data section?
--
MST
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
