On 05/21/2018 03:54 PM, Daniel Colascione wrote: >> There are also certainly denial-of-service concerns if you allow >> arbitrary numbers of VMAs. The rbtree, for instance, is O(log(n)), but >> I 'd be willing to be there are plenty of things that fall over if you >> let the ~65k limit get 10x or 100x larger. > Sure. I'm receptive to the idea of having *some* VMA limit. I just think > it's unacceptable let deallocation routines fail. If you have a resource limit and deallocation consumes resources, you *eventually* have to fail a deallocation. Right?
