linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] File Sealing & memfd

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:36:55 +0200
From:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>, Ryan Lortie <desrt@...rt.ca>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] File Sealing & memfd_create()

Hi

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> Can you summarize why holes can't be reliably backed by the zero page?

To answer this, I will quote Hugh from "PATCH v2 1/3":

> We do already use the ZERO_PAGE instead of allocating when it's a
> simple read; and on the face of it, we could extend that to mmap
> once the file is sealed.  But I am rather afraid to do so - for
> many years there was an mmap /dev/zero case which did that, but
> it was an easily forgotten case which caught us out at least
> once, so I'm reluctant to reintroduce it now for sealing.
>
> Anyway, I don't expect you to resolve the issue of sealed holes:
> that's very much my territory, to give you support on.

Holes can be avoided with a simple fallocate(). I don't understand why
I should make SEAL_WRITE do the fallocate for the caller. During the
discussion of memfd_create() I was told to drop the "size" parameter,
because it is redundant. I don't see how this implicit fallocate()
does not fall into the same category?

Thanks
David
--
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/