Re: [PATCH] Mark thread stack correctly in proc/<pid>/maps

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Is there a reason the names aren't consistent - i.e. not vma_is_stack_guard()?

Ah, that was an error on my part; I did not notice the naming convention.

> How about simply calling it vma_is_guard(), return 1 if it's PROT_NONE
> without checking vma_is_stack() or ->vm_next/prev, and annotate the
> maps output like this:
>   is_stack              => "[stack]"
>   is_guard & is_stack   => "[stack guard]"
>   is_guard & !is_stack  => "[guard]"
> What do you think?

Thanks for the review. We're already marking permissions in the maps
output to convey protection, so isn't marking those vmas as [guard]

Following that, we could just mark the thread stack guard as [stack]
without any permissions. The process stack guard page probably
deserves the [stack guard] label since it is marked differently from
the thread stack guard and will otherwise have the permissions that
the process stack has. Will that be good?

Siddhesh Poyarekar
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Netdev]     [Linux Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Memory]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux Resources]

Add to Google Powered by Linux