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]

Date:	Wed, 30 May 2012 14:42:42 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	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, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:

> 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.

Well at least lets exempt shared memory from memory migration and memory
policy updates. That seems to be causing many of these issues.


--
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/