Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69

Timothy Miller
2003-05-07T21:38:42Z

Jesse Pollard wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 May 2003 12:13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>One thing that would help (aside from separate interrupt stacks)
>>would be a guard page below the stack. That wouldn't require any
>>physical memory to be reserved, and would provide positive indication
>>of stack overflow without significant runtime overhead.
>
>
> It does take up a page table entry, which may also be in short supply

Now, I'm sure this has GOT to be a terribly ignorant question, but I'll
try anyhow:

What happens if you simply neglect to provide a mapping for that page?
I'm sure that will cause some sort of page fault. Why would you have to
do something different?