linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet

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: <20120530193234.GV27374@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 May 2012 21:32:34 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kosaki.motohiro@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, hughd@...gle.com, sivanich@....com,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:50:02PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > I always regretted that cpusets were no done with custom node lists.
> > That would have been much cleaner and also likely faster than what we have.
> 
> Could shared memory policies ignore cpuset constraints?

Only if noone uses cpusets as a "security" mechanism, just for a "soft policy"
Even with soft policy you could well break someone's setup.

Maybe there are some better ways to do that now with memcg, not fully sure.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/