Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
> > And because this requirement is not specified in the relevant standards,
> > it is wrong to assume valloc() returns locked pages.
>
> is it? I sort of doubt that (but I'm not a standards expert, but I'd
> expect that "lock all in the future" applies to all memory, not just
> mmap'd memory
I concur:
Locking pages into core is a property/duty of the VM subsystem.
If you have an orthogonal VM subsystem, you cannot later tell how a page was
mapped into the user's address space. Even more: you may map a file to a
alocation in the data segment of the proces (that has been retrieved via
malloc()/brk()) and replace the related mapping with a mapped file.
On Solaris, there is no difference.
>
> > You cannot rely on
> > mmap() returning locked pages after mlockall() either, because you might
> > be exceeding resource limits.
>
> this is true and fully correct
>
>
>
> the situation is messy; I can see some value in the hack Ted proposed to
> just bump the rlimit automatically at an mlockall-done-by-root.. but to
> be fair it's a hack :(
As all other rlimits are honored even if you are root, it looks not orthogonal
to disregard an existing RLIMIT_MEMLOCK rlimit if you are root.
Jörg
--
EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[email protected] (uni)
[email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
-
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]
