Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:46:02 -0700
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: mlock(1)
Message-ID: <20040924134602.U1924@build.pdx.osdl.net>
References: <41547C16.4070301@pobox.com> <20040924132247.W1973@build.pdx.osdl.net> <4154867F.7030108@nortelnetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <4154867F.7030108@nortelnetworks.com>; from cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com on Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:41:35PM -0600
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 814
Lines: 21

* Chris Friesen (cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com) wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
> 
> > 2. Problem is the execve(2) that the mlock(1) program would have to call.
> > This blows away the mappings which contain the locking info.
> 
> Does it?  The man page said it isn't inherited on fork(), but why wouldn't it 
> be inherited on exec()?

The info is stored in the memory mapping info that's necessarily blown
away at execve(2) because that's where you are overlaying a new image.

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/