On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:22:40PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > Your stack example is a good one: if we end up setting VM_DONTCOPY on > > the user stack, then I don't think fork's child will get very far without > > hitting a SIGSEGV. > > I know, but I prefer child SIGSEGV than silent data corruption.
Most people will share your preference, but neither is satisfactory. > In most cases child will exec immediately after fork so no problem > in this case. In most(?) cases it won't even be able to exec before the SIGSEGV. Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
