On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is there a reason the names aren't consistent - i.e. not vma_is_stack_guard()? Ah, that was an error on my part; I did not notice the naming convention. > How about simply calling it vma_is_guard(), return 1 if it's PROT_NONE > without checking vma_is_stack() or ->vm_next/prev, and annotate the > maps output like this: > > is_stack => "[stack]" > is_guard & is_stack => "[stack guard]" > is_guard & !is_stack => "[guard]" > > What do you think? Thanks for the review. We're already marking permissions in the maps output to convey protection, so isn't marking those vmas as [guard] redundant? Following that, we could just mark the thread stack guard as [stack] without any permissions. The process stack guard page probably deserves the [stack guard] label since it is marked differently from the thread stack guard and will otherwise have the permissions that the process stack has. Will that be good? -- Siddhesh Poyarekar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
