linux-kernel - Re: missing madvise functionality

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: <20070403172841.GB23689@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:28:41 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: missing madvise functionality

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:20:02AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Why do you need a lock for that? I don't see any problem with
> > two threads doing that in parallel. The kernel would
> > serialize it internally and one would fail, but that shouldn't
> > be a problem. 
> 
> There is no lock at all at userlevel.  I'm talking about locks in the
> kernel.

mmap_sem? Your new operation wouldn't solve that neither.

There were some proposals to fix mmap_sem (it's a big issue
for futexes too) but they're are quite involved.

-Andi
-
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/