linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] 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: <84144f021001180609r4d7fbbd0p972d5bc0e227d09a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:09:35 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, andrew.c.morrow@...il.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag

Hi Gleb,

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> wrote:
> The current interaction between mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) and mmap has a
> deficiency. In 'normal' mode, without MCL_FUTURE in force, the default
> is that new memory mappings are not locked, but mmap provides MAP_LOCKED
> specifically to override that default. However, with MCL_FUTURE toggled
> to on, there is no analogous way to tell mmap to override the default. The
> proposed MAP_UNLOCKED flag would resolve this deficiency.
>
> The benefit of the patch is that it makes it possible for an application
> which has previously called mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) to selectively exempt
> new memory mappings from memory locking, on a per-mmap-call basis. There
> is currently no thread-safe way for an application to do this as
> toggling MCL_FUTURE around calls to mmap is racy in a multi-threaded
> context. Other threads may manipulate the address space during the
> window where MCL_FUTURE is off, subverting the programmers intended
> memory locking semantics.
>
> The ability to exempt specific memory mappings from memory locking is
> necessary when the region to be mapped is larger than physical memory.
> In such cases a call to mmap the region cannot succeed, unless
> MAP_UNLOCKED is available.

The changelog doesn't mention what kind of applications would want to
use this. Are there some? Using mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) but then having
some memory regions MAP_UNLOCKED sounds like a strange combination to
me.
--
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/