On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> That is _exactly_ what I thought it was just happening in 2.3.x because I
> didn't noticed the CAN_UNUSE difference between 2.2.x and 2.3.x.
>
> But before noticing CAN_UNUSE I fixed the problem properly (not with an
> hack that can be exploited).
Wrong.
It's not a hack, and it cannot be exploited. You can't just lock down
pages in memory - they will be paged out on demand, and there is no
exploit. You seem to have complicated the code just because you didn't
notice that we already handled it with a very simple test.
Linus
