linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] mlock/stack guard interaction fixup

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: <1282580751.2605.1997.camel@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:25:51 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	ijackson@...ark.greenend.org.uk
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	stable-review@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mlock/stack guard interaction fixup

On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 16:42 +0100, ijackson@...ark.greenend.org.uk
wrote:
> 
> mlocking the stack is entirely sensible and normal for a real-time
> program.  Most such programs use mlockall but there is no particular
> reason why a program that has some more specific requirements should
> use mlock to lock only a part of the stack.  (Perhaps it has only one
> real-time thread?) 

RT apps should pre-allocate and mlock their stack in advance (and
pre-fault too for the paranoid).

mlockall is a very bad interface and should really not be used.
--
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/