+ - Get rid of rox--causes more trouble than it's worth
+
+ - Extra credit: specifics on how to implement sbrk, malloc.
+
+ - Godmar: We're missing tests that pass arguments to system calls
+ that span multiple pages, where some are mapped and some are not.
+ An implementation that only checks the first page, rather than all
+ pages that can be touched during a call to read()/write() passes
+ all tests.
+
+ - Godmar: Need some tests that test that illegal accesses lead to
+ process termination. I have written some, will add them. In P2,
+ obviously, this would require that the students break this
+ functionality since the page directory is initialized for them,
+ still it would be good to have.
+
+ - Godmar: There does not appear to be a test that checks that they
+ close all fd's on exit. Idea: add statistics & self-diagnostics
+ code to palloc.c and malloc.c. Self-diagnostics code could be
+ used for debugging. The statistics code would report how much
+ kernel memory is free. Add a system call
+ "get_kernel_memory_information". User programs could engage in a
+ variety of activities and notice leaks by checking the kernel
+ memory statistics.
+
+ - Godmar: is there a test that tests that they properly kill a process that
+ attempts to access an invalid address in user code, e.g. *(void**)0 =
+ 42;?
+
+ It seems all of the robustness tests deal with bad pointers passed to
+ system calls (at least judging from test/userprog/Rubric.robustness),
+ but none deals with bad accesses by user code, or I am missing
+ something.
+
+ ps: I found tests/vm/pt-bad-addr, which is in project 3 only, though.
+
+ For completeness, we should probably check read/write/jump to unmapped
+ user virtual address and to mapped kernel address, for a total of 6
+ cases. I wrote up some tests, see
+ http://people.cs.vt.edu/~gback/pintos/bad-pointers/
+
+ - process_death test needs improvement
+
+ - Godmar: In the wait() tests, there's currently no test that tests
+ that a process can only wait for its own children. There's only
+ one test that tests that wait() on an invalid pid returns -1 (or
+ kills the process), but no test where a valid pid is used that is
+ not a child of the current process.
+
+ The current tests also do not ensure that both scenarios (parent waits
+ first vs. child exits first) are exercised. In this context, I'm
+ wondering if we should add a sleep() system call that would export
+ timer_sleep() to user processes; this would allow the construction of
+ such a test. It would also make it easier to construct a test for the
+ valid-pid, but not-a-child scenario.
+
+ As in Project 4, the baseline implementation of timer_sleep() should
+ suffice, so this would not necessarily require basing Project 2 on
+ Project 1. [ A related thought: IMO it would not be entirely
+ unreasonable to require timer_sleep() and priority scheduling sans
+ donation from Project 1 working for subsequent projects. ]
+
+* VM project: