On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:27:19PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I would suggest not to implement mprotect+sigsegv because maintaining
> both APIs would be messy but mostly because mprotect cannot really
> work for all cases and it would risk to fail at any time with
> -ENOMEM. postcopy live migration had similar issues and this is why it
> wasn't possible to achieve it reliably without userfaultfd.

Yes, thanks for explaining the issues.  I agree that the mprotect
approach isn't worthwhile.  We need to use userfaultfd.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to