On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 05:14:13PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Mark Kettenis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:54:23 -0500 (EST) > >> From: Ted Unangst <[email protected]> > >> > >> increase the hard limit on i386 max data size to 2GB-1. This will allow > >> memory hungry processes to potentially use more RAM if you increase data > >> limits appropriately. > > > > I really think that -1 is odd. Where would those potential overflows be? > > Anyone who stores the limit in a signed int (or long). Do I know of > any such software? No. Am I willing to risk the possibility of such > existing to squeeze out a few more bytes? No. > > I will happily set it to straight 2GB, or even higher if we don't care > about possible trouble, so long as everybody promises not to complain > if an issue is found. :)
I object against the -1. MAXDSIZ is always compared against multiples of page size, so there is no reason to make it not a multiple of page size. Furthermore, the -1 means that a calculation like "what's the first page after data" becomes hell. I have no objection against -PAGE_SIZE. But for that matter, I don't object against plain 2GB either. It shouldn't end up in a signed value anyway. -- Ariane
