| To: | ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx (Ralf Baechle) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: My sys32_execve(). |
| From: | kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar) |
| Date: | Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:31:43 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx (Ralf Baechle), ulfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ulf Carlsson), kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar), linux-origin@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20000302012115.A5607@uni-koblenz.de> from "Ralf Baechle" at Mar 02, 2000 01:21:15 AM |
| Sender: | owner-linux-origin@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> TASK_SIZE is the size of a native, that is 64-bit process in our case. > We only need to consider the size of a 32-bit process for > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE which we do already. > > Ralf > We are probably ages away from when TASK_SIZE will be a problem, but get_unmapped_area() will return success for 32 bit programs when it really should not, in certain cases. Tweaking TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE itself is not enough. I think the Sparc guys take care of this, in their HAVE_ARCH_UNMAPPED_AREA get_unmapped_area() declaration. We do not need such a heavyweight solution though, certainly not soon. Kanoj |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: My sys32_execve()., Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: My sys32_execve()., Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: My sys32_execve()., Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | Re: My sys32_execve()., Ralf Baechle |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |