linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] - support inheritance of mlocks across fork/exec V2

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1244176757.11597.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:39:17 -0400
From:	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
To:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, riel@...hat.com,
	hugh@...itas.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] - support inheritance of mlocks across fork/exec V2

On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 14:04 -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:

> Add support for mlockall(MCL_INHERIT|MCL_RECURSIVE):

FWIW, I really liked this patch series. And I think there is still value
in a generic "mlock" wrapper utility that I can use. Sure, the later on
containers suggestions are all wonderful in theory but I don't see that
that went anywhere either (and I disagree that we can't trust people to
use this right without doing silly things) - if I'm really right that
this got dropped on the floor, can we resurrect it in .31 please?

Jon.

--
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/