On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Jamie Lokier [off-list ref] 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]
redundant?

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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>