Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69

[Timothy Miller]

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?