linux-kernel - Re: mlock() return value issue in kernel 2.6.23.17

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080801161651.FEBE.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:23:40 +0900
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, halesh.s@...ia.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mlock() return value issue in kernel 2.6.23.17

Hi Andrew,

> I assume that you tested it too?

Yes, my x86_64 box works well.

sorry, ambiguity e-mail.

halesh's test check two point.
  - mlock rlimit
  - invlid address range

and, I think rlimit already works well.
So, I ask halesh re-confirming.

> If it comes down to a choice between complying with SuS versus
> complying with earlier Linux versions then we'd usually prefer to
> comply with earlier Linux versions.

I see.

> I queued this, but would prefer to await confirmation that it has been
> tested to take us back to the 2.6.18 interface, please.

Yes.
this patch wasn't tested on split-lru yet.
I'll do that. (and probably fix it)

> Also, please send a Signed-off-by: for this change.

Agghh, sorry. it is stupid forgotten.



--
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/