linux-kernel - Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:16:21 -0500 (CDT)
From:   Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
cc:     Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@...il.com>, mhocko@...nel.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
        riel@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-man@...r.kernel.org, Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: Rewording language in mbind(2) to "threads" not "processes"

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:

> @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with the
>  .B SHM_HUGETLB
>  flag,
>  the huge pages will be allocated according to the policy specified
> -only if the page allocation is caused by the process that calls
> +only if the page allocation is caused by the thread that calls
> +.\"
> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "process" to "thread" in the preceding line?

No leave it as process. Pages get one map refcount per page table
that references them (meaning a process). More than one map refcount means
that multiple processes have mapped the page.

> @@ -300,7 +303,10 @@ is specified in
>  .IR flags ,
>  then the kernel will attempt to move all the existing pages
>  in the memory range so that they follow the policy.
> -Pages that are shared with other processes will not be moved.
> +Pages that are shared with other threads will not be moved.
> +.\"
> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line?
> +.\"

Leave it. Same as before.

>  If
>  then the kernel will attempt to move all existing pages in the memory range
> -regardless of whether other processes use the pages.
> -The calling process must be privileged
> +regardless of whether other threads use the pages.
> +.\"
> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding line?
> +.\"

Leave as process.