linux-kernel - Re: [-mm PATCH] Memory controller improve user interface

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: <1188426352.28903.143.camel@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:25:52 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM Mailing List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [-mm PATCH] Memory controller improve user interface

On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:20 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> 
> I'd argue that having the user's specified limit be truncated to the
> page size is less confusing than giving an EINVAL if it's not page
> aligned.

Do we truncate mmap() values to the nearest page so to not confuse the
user? ;)

Imagine a careful application setting and accounting for limits on a
long-running system.  Might its internal accounting get sufficiently
misaligned from the kernel's after a while to cause a problem?
Truncating values like that would appear reserve significantly less
memory than desired over a long period of time.

-- Dave

-
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/