linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm: Fix SHM_HUGETLB to work with users in hugetlb_shm

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]

Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:32:57 -0500
From:	wli@...ementarian.org
To:	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, shai@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: Fix SHM_HUGETLB to work with users in hugetlb_shm_group

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 01:25:29PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> This should be split into another patch (i.e. three in all). The
>> first patch allows users in thh shm_group to use huge pages. The
>> second that accounts for locked_shm properly. The third allows
>> users with a high enough locked rlimit to use shmget() with
>> hugepages. However, my feeling right now would be to ack 1,
>> re-reread 2 and nak 3.

I'm saying to ack all 3 for backward compatibility reasons, once
they're fixed up according to your other commentary.

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:08:51AM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> I totally agree.  In fact yesterday I was thinking of resending
> this patch to not account for shm memory when a user is not
> validated against rlimits (when he has CAP_IPC_LOCK or if he
> belongs to the sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group).
> As I see it there must be two parts:
> 1. Free ticket to CAP_IPC_LOCK and users belonging to
>    sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group
> 2. Patch to have users not having CAP_IPC_LOCK or
>    sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group to check against memlock
>    rlimits, and account it.  Also mark this deprecated in
>    feature-removal-schedule.txt
> Would this be OK?

This is the ideal scenario, except I thought the rlimit was destined
to replace the other methods, not vice-versa. I don't really mind
going this way, but maybe we should check in with the rlimit authors.


-- wli
--
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/