linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/14] vrange: Add new vrange(2) system call

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:	Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:59:40 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
	Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Andrea Righi <andrea@...terlinux.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Hommey <mh@...ndium.org>, Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] vrange: Add new vrange(2) system call

On 10/07/2013 04:54 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>>>
>> And wouldn't this apply to MADV_DONTNEED just as well?  Perhaps what we
>> should do is an enhanced madvise() call?
> Well, I think MADV_DONTNEED doesn't *have* do to anything at all. Its
> advisory after all. So it may immediately wipe out any data, but it may not.
> 
> Those advisory semantics work fine w/ VRANGE_VOLATILE. However,
> VRANGE_NONVOLATILE is not quite advisory, its telling the system that it
> requires the memory at the specified range to not be volatile, and we
> need to correctly inform userland how much was changed and if any of the
> memory we did change to non-volatile was purged since being set volatile.
> 
> In that way it is sort of different from madvise. Some sort of an
> madvise2 could be done, but then the extra purge state argument would be
> oddly defined for any other mode.
> 
> Is your main concern here just wanting to have a zero-fill mode with
> volatile ranges? Or do you really want to squeeze this in to the madvise
> call interface?

The point is that MADV_DONTNEED is very similar in that sense,
especially if allowed to be lazy.  It makes a lot of sense to permit
both scrubbing modes orthogonally.

The point you're making has to do with withdrawal of permission to flush
on demand, which is a result of having the lazy mode (ongoing
permission) and having to be able to withdraw such permission.

	-0hpa


--
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/