[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E52B96B.8040404@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:17:47 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86, mm: start mmap allocation for libs from low addresses
On 08/22/2011 01:14 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>
>> Code-wise:
>>
>> The code is horrific; it is full of open-coded magic numbers;
>
> Agreed, the magic needs macro definition and comments.
>
>> it also
>> puts a function called arch_get_unmapped_exec_area() in a generic file,
>> which could best be described as "WTF" -- the arch_ prefix we use
>> specifically to denote a per-architecture hook function.
>
> Agreed. But I'd want to leave it in mm/mmap.c as it's likely be used by
> other archs - the changes are bitness specific, not arch specific. Is
> it OK if I do this?
>
> #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_UNMAPPED_EXEC_AREA
> void *arch_get_unmapped_exec_area(...)
> {
> ...
> }
> #endif
>
Only if this is really an architecture-specific function overridden in
specific architectures. I'm not so sure that applies here.
Furthermore, I'm not even all that sure what this function *does*.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
