On May 10, 2016 11:21 AM, "Oleg Nesterov" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 05/10, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > - xol_add_vma: This one is weird: uprobes really is doing something > > behind the task's back, and the addresses need to be consistent with > > the address width. I'm not quite sure what to do here. > > It can use mm->task_size instead, plus this is just a hint. And perhaps > mm->task_size should have more users, say get_unmapped_area...
Ick. I hadn't noticed mm->task_size. We have a *lot* of different indicators of task size. mm->task_size appears to have basically no useful uses except maybe for ppc. On x86, bitness can change without telling the kernel, and tasks running in 64-bit mode can do 32-bit syscalls. So maybe I should add mm->task_size to my list of things that would be nice to remove. Or maybe I'm just tilting at windmills. > > Not sure we should really get rid of dynamic TASK_SIZE completely, but > personally I agree it looks a bit ugly. > > Oleg. >
