linux-kernel - mprotect and vmas

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

Message-ID: <j2oa36005b51004141749ua63eea62m55695dd3922f882f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:49:31 -0700
From:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	aarcange@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: mprotect and vmas

Quite some time there was a discussion around mprotect and why it
creates vmas.  The issue never got resolved IIRC but the urgency is
more pressing than ever.  We have today commodity machines with 8
sockets and 512G of RAM with single processes using all these
resources.

>From what I remember the idea was that an mprotect call shouldn't
really have to split a vma.  Frequent examples are DSO loading, the
malloc implementation, or thread stacks.  They both have to change the
protection of a memory region to PROT_NONE or in other cases
add/remove PROT_WRITE etc.

This information could be represented in the page table tree alone and
doesn't require a vma split.

Is this something that can be considered?  This could reduce the
number of vmas in a large process significantly, reducing the cost of
finding a specific vma or, perhaps more importantly, gaps.
--
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/