On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:20:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> > >> As an example, a 32-bit x86 program really could have something mapped > >> above the 32-bit boundary. It just wouldn't be useful, but the kernel > >> should still understand that it's *user* memory. > >> > >> So you'd have PR_SET_MMAP_LIMIT and PR_GET_MMAP_LIMIT or similar instead. > > > > +1. Also it might be (not sure though, just guessing) suitable to do such > > thing via memory cgroup controller, instead of carrying this limit per > > each process (or task structure/vma or mm). > > I think we'll want this per mm. After all, a high-VA-limit-aware bash > should be able run high-VA-unaware programs without fiddling with > cgroups. Wait. You mean to have some flag in mm struct and consider its value on mmap call? Cyrill -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>