Re: [patch 18/39] remap_file_pages protection support: add VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV

Russell King
2005-08-15T10:25:50Z

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:15:48AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 08:12:54PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Well there is now, and that is we are now using a bit in the 2nd
> > byte as flags. So I had to do away with -ve numbers there entirely.
> >
> > You could achieve a similar thing by using another bit in that byte
> > #define VM_FAULT_FAILED 0x20
> > and make that bit present in VM_FAULT_OOM and VM_FAULT_SIGBUS, then
> > do an unlikely test for that bit in your handler and branch away to
> > the slow path.
>
> That'll do as well, thanks.

Note that Ingo will not get replies from me anymore - Ingo is doing
sender callback checks on the From:/Sender: headers. Since my joejob
protection ensures that I never receive bounces to those addresses,
such callbacks fail. Hence his server rejects my messages.

I am not changing my policy on this - I get hammered with a tremendous
amount of such crap which tools like SA seem completely incapable of
dealing with, sorry.

(Note: this means that other folk, eg dwmw2, are in a similar position.)