Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix integer overflow of VmLib

[Richard Weinberger]

Michal,

Am 05.01.2017 um 14:49 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> If you just read the documentation:
> VmLib                       size of shared library code
> 
> then 0 might suggest there are no shared libraries used and the code is
> statically linked

Which is IMHO not correct. So, the documentation needs a fix too.

>> Unless I misread the code, VmLib will honour any PROT_EXEC mapping.
>> So, a statically linked JIT will have VmLib > 0.
> 
> yes the code behaves differently and that's why I've said that the
> reported number is not correct no matter how.
> 
> Anyway, as I've said I do not see any solution without risk of
> regression while the current code is clearly wrong. If the general
> consensus is that 0 is better than explicitly documenting VmLib as the
> size of executable code and report it that way then I have no objections
> and won't stay in the way. I am not sure which poison is worse.
> 

Agreed. :-)

Thanks,
//richard