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. Stefan
Description: PGP signature