On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 26 2007 13:30, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >> @@ -251,7 +251,8 @@ asmlinkage unsigned long sys_brk(unsigned long brk)
> >> * not page aligned -Ram Gupta
> >> */
> >>rlim = current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_DATA].rlim_cur;
> >> - if (rlim < RLIM_
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > > - if (rlim < RLIM_INFINITY && brk - mm->start_data > rlim)
> > > + if (rlim < RLIM_INFINITY && brk - mm->start_data -
> > > + (mm->start_brk - mm->end_data) > rlim)
> > I find the order in th
On Oct 26 2007 13:30, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> @@ -251,7 +251,8 @@ asmlinkage unsigned long sys_brk(unsigned long brk)
>> * not page aligned -Ram Gupta
>> */
>> rlim = current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_DATA].rlim_cur;
>> -if (rlim < RLIM_INFINITY && brk - mm->start_data > rlim)
>> +
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > - if (rlim < RLIM_INFINITY && brk - mm->start_data > rlim)
> > + if (rlim < RLIM_INFINITY && brk - mm->start_data -
> > + (mm->start_brk - mm->end_data) > rlim)
> I find the order in that test mysterious.
I agree that the order yo
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Sami Farin wrote:
> > > > > Would be neat if randomized brk and setrlimit(RLIMIT_DATA, ...)
> > > > > worked in a predictable way:
> > > > this isn't a valid case afaics; even on "traditional x86" (before we
> > > > changed the address
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Sami Farin wrote:
> > > > Would be neat if randomized brk and setrlimit(RLIMIT_DATA, ...)
> > > > worked in a predictable way:
> > > this isn't a valid case afaics; even on "traditional x86" (before we
> > > changed the address space layout, or even today if you have an
> >
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 16:46:26 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > Would be neat if randomized brk and setrlimit(RLIMIT_DATA, ...)
> > > worked in a predictable way:
> > this isn't a valid case afaics; even on "traditional x86" (before we
> > changed
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Would be neat if randomized brk and setrlimit(RLIMIT_DATA, ...)
> > worked in a predictable way:
> this isn't a valid case afaics; even on "traditional x86" (before we
> changed the address space layout, or even today if you have an unlimited
> st
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:41:24 +0300
Sami Farin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would be neat if randomized brk and setrlimit(RLIMIT_DATA, ...)
> worked in a predictable way:
this isn't a valid case afaics; even on "traditional x86" (before we
changed the address space layout, or even today if you hav
Would be neat if randomized brk and setrlimit(RLIMIT_DATA, ...)
worked in a predictable way:
$ gcc brk.c -fPIC -pie -m64;./a.out;./a.out;./a.out
sbrk=0x7f721b815000 main=0x7f721af04860
sbrk succeeded (brk=0x7f721b909240)
sbrk=0x7fc3d77e2000 main=0x7fc3d66fa860
sbrk failed: Cannot allocate memory (
10 matches
Mail list logo
