[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282633694.2605.2254.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:08:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ian Jackson <ijackson@...ark.greenend.org.uk>,
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
Subject: Re: [RFC] mlock/stack guard interaction fixup
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:54 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 08/23/2010 12:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:23 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >> On 08/23/2010 12:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> mlock() simply avoids major faults, nothing more.
> >>>
> >>> I think both page migration and page-out for shared pages where some
> >>> maps are !mlocked can cause unmaps and thus minor faults.
> >>>
> >>> mlock and dirty do not interact, they will still be cleaned/written out
> >>> as normal.
> >> So mlock is useless for preventing secret stuff from being written to disk.
> > Well, if you put your sekrit in a file map, sure.
> >
> > Use a mmap(MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_LOCK) and madvise(MADV_DONTFORK) for your
> > sekrits.
>
> Won't dirty anonymous pages also get written to swap?
Not if all the maps are mlocked (private like above would only have a
single map), there'd be no point would there.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists