linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] NOMMU: Set BDI capabilities for /dev/mem and /dev/kmem

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]

Message-ID: <1082.1156876794@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:39:54 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, uclinux-dev@...inux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] NOMMU: Set BDI capabilities for /dev/mem and /dev/kmem 

Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:

> #else
> #define get_unmapped_area_mem NULL
> #endif

Blech.

Of course, I could just declare the new symbols weak, and stick
get_unmapped_area_mem() and mem_bdi in their own file which would be
conditional on !CONFIG_MMU.

> This changes behaviour, doesn't it?

Yes.

>  But only for !CONFIG_MMU kernels?

Yes.  For the moment, nothing in MMU world actually looks at these
capabilities, though perhaps they should.

> Perhaps some additional commentary around this is needed.

Perhaps... or perhaps it should have different capabilities if there's an MMU.

Is doing a private mapping of /dev/mem a valid thing to do anyway, even if
there is an MMU?

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/