On 02/01/2011 12:59 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Michel Lespinasse<walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am proposing to let mlock ignore vma protection in all cases except
PROT_NONE.
What's so special about PROT_NONE? If you want to mlock something
without actually being able to then fault that in, why not?
IOW, why wouldn't it be right to just make FOLL_FORCE be unconditional in mlock?
I could think of a combination of reasons.
Specifically, some libc/linker magic will set up PROT_NONE
areas for programs automatically.
Some programs use mlockall to lock themselves into memory,
with no idea that PROT_NONE areas were set up behind its
back.
Faulting in the PROT_NONE memory will result is wasted
memory, without the application even realizing it.
--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>