[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hurd stacks, some more (was: RFC: ruby1.9.1 FTBFS)
|
From: |
Neal H. Walfield |
|
Subject: |
Re: Hurd stacks, some more (was: RFC: ruby1.9.1 FTBFS) |
|
Date: |
Thu, 04 Jul 2013 17:50:44 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.8 Emacs/23.2 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) |
At Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:06:09 +0200,
Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> I wonder: if MAP_STACK is set, would it even be
> reasonable for mmap to ignore the supplied length, and instead use the
> one "proper" value, 0x200000?
I think that this is only acceptable if the length exceeds the
supplied length.
This would, however, creates a small problem: when calling munmap, the
length is passed. Since the caller doesn't know that a larger area
was mapped, we would need to record these exceptions and check for
them on munmap. That's ugly.
Neal