linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] add MAP

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: <1254837003.21044.283.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:50:03 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag

On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 14:16 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > No, I only think your case doesn't fit MC_FUTURE.
> > I haven't find any real benefit in this patch.

> I did. It allows me to achieve something I can't now. Steps you provide
> just don't fit my needs. I need all memory areas (current and feature) to be
> locked except one. Very big one. You propose to lock memory at some
> arbitrary point and from that point on all newly mapped memory areas will
> be unlocked. Don't you see it is different?

While true, it does demonstrates very sloppy programming. The proper fix
is to rework qemu to mlock what is needed.

I'm not sure encouraging mlockall() usage is a good thing. When using
resource locks one had better know what he's doing. mlockall() doesn't
promote caution.

--
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/