linux-kernel - Re: nommu: handling anonymous mmap clearing in userspace rather than kernel

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: <47F3A02B.5070302@t-online.de>
Date:	Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:03:07 +0200
From:	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
CC:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Greg Ungerer <gerg@...pgear.com>,
	David McCullough <David_Mccullough@...urecomputing.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bryan Wu <Bryan.Wu@...log.com>,
	Robin Getz <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org>
Subject: Re: nommu: handling anonymous mmap clearing in userspace rather than
 kernel

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:20 AM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com> wrote:
>>  > a workaround: introduce a new no-mmu-only mmap flag MAP_UNINITIALIZE
>>  > to signal to the kernel that it should skip the memset().  this way,
>>  > userspace malloc() can do mmap(MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_UNINITIALIZE) to get
>>  > large chunks of memory without affecting any other anonymous mmap()
>>  > call.
>>
>>  I think that's reasonable for NOMMU.  It's not like the process accessing the
>>  uninitialised memory is prevented from accessing anything it wants to anyway.
>>
>>  I would vote that the memset() should only be skipped if requested as there
>>  may be programs that call mmap(MAP_ANONYMOUS) expecting the memory they're
>>  given to be zeroed out.
> 
> in the second proposal, the C library would be expected to do this, so
> no programs would be broken.  but you're right that any program that
> invokes the mmap() syscall directly would not get zeroed memory ...
> but is anyone doing such a crazy thing, let alone on embedded ?

It's not a guarantee we should break.  What's wrong with just using the 
MAP_UNINITIALIZE code we have?


Bernd
-- 
This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers.
Analog Devices GmbH      Wilhelm-Wagenfeld-Str. 6      80807 Muenchen
Sitz der Gesellschaft Muenchen, Registergericht Muenchen HRB 40368
Geschaeftsfuehrer Thomas Wessel, William A. Martin, Margaret Seif
--
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/