linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/13] BC: locked pages (charge hooks)

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: <44FE97B1.7050206@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:41:05 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
CC:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/13] BC: locked pages (charge hooks)

Pavel Emelianov wrote:

>Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Introduce calls to BC core over the kernel to charge locked memory.
>>>
>>>Normaly new locked piece of memory may appear in insert_vm_struct,
>>>but there are places (do_mmap_pgoff, dup_mmap etc) when new vma
>>>is not inserted by insert_vm_struct(), but either link_vma-ed or
>>>merged with some other - these places call BC code explicitly.
>>>
>>>Plus sys_mlock[all] itself has to be patched to charge/uncharge
>>>needed amount of pages.
>>>
>>
>>I still haven't heard your good reasons why such a complex scheme is
>>required when my really simple proposal of unconditionally charging
>>the page to the container it was allocated by.
>>
>Charging the page to the container it was allocated in is a possible and
>correct way, we agree, but how does this comment refer to locked pages
>

If it is a possible and correct way, I'd must rather see *that* way
get tried first, and then made more complex or discarded if it is
found to be insufficient.

>accounting?
>

That's where I'd looked at enough mm/ stuff to decide that it wasn't
just my usual unjustified whining. Complexity of this approach is
quite... high.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/