From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1032444AbdAETcf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:32:35 -0500
Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:62573 "EHLO mga06.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1763543AbdAET3q (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:29:46 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,322,1477983600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="210086251"
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 22:29:10 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT_VADDR
Message-ID: <20170105192910.q26ozg4ci4i3j2ai@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20161227015413.187403-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20161227015413.187403-30-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <5a3dcc25-b264-37c7-c090-09981b23940d@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5a3dcc25-b264-37c7-c090-09981b23940d@intel.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.0)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:13:57AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/26/2016 05:54 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > MM would use min(RLIMIT_VADDR, TASK_SIZE) as upper limit of virtual
> > address available to map by userspace.
> 
> What happens to existing mappings above the limit when this upper limit
> is dropped?

Nothing: we only prevent creating new mappings. All existing are not
affected.

The semantics here the same as with other resource limits.

> Similarly, why do we do with an application running with something
> incompatible with the larger address space that tries to raise the
> limit?  Say, legacy MPX.

It has to know what it does. Yes, it can change limit to the point where
application is unusable. But you can to the same with other limits.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov