From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933648AbXCPQbr (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:31:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933916AbXCPQbq (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:31:46 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51190 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933648AbXCPQbp (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:31:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:31:21 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Zachary Amsden , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jan Beulich , Rusty Russell , Andi Kleen , Chris Wright , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Virtualization Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] Fixup COMPAT_VDSO to work with CONFIG_PARAVIRT Message-ID: <20070316163118.GA12999@elte.hu> References: <45FA054F.6020107@vmware.com> <45FAC4EF.4060305@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45FAC4EF.4060305@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > The practical question here is if we already have all of the > > relocation logic for the VDSO why do we need to add more? > > The kernel doesn't normally ever relocate the vdso; [...] that's what is the case right now, but much of the intention behind the vma based vDSO is to enable per-process randomized vdso locations, and various distributions do that. So the 'modern' vDSO concept is very much relocatable. Ingo