linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/3] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page fault

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: <20150601152746.abbbbb9d479c0e2dbdec2aaf@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:27:46 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
Cc:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/3] Allow user to request memory to be locked on
 page fault

On Fri, 29 May 2015 10:13:25 -0400 Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com> wrote:

> mlock() allows a user to control page out of program memory, but this
> comes at the cost of faulting in the entire mapping when it is
> allocated.  For large mappings where the entire area is not necessary
> this is not ideal.
> 
> This series introduces new flags for mmap() and mlockall() that allow a
> user to specify that the covered are should not be paged out, but only
> after the memory has been used the first time.

I almost applied these, but the naming issue (below) stopped me.

A few things...

- The 0/n changelog should reveal how MAP_LOCKONFAULT interacts with
  rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK).

  I see the implementation is "as if the entire mapping will be
  faulted in" (for mmap) and "as if it was MCL_FUTURE" (for mlockall)
  which seems fine.  Please include changelog text explaining and
  justifying these decisions.  This stuff will need to be in the
  manpage updates as well.

- I think I already asked "why not just use MCL_FUTURE" but I forget
  the answer ;) In general it is a good idea to update changelogs in
  response to reviewer questions, because other people will be
  wondering the same things.  Or maybe I forgot to ask.  Either way,
  please address this in the changelogs.

- I can perhaps see the point in mmap(MAP_LOCKONFAULT) (other
  mappings don't get lock-in-memory treatment), but what's the benefit
  in mlockall(MCL_ON_FAULT) over MCL_FUTURE?  (Add to changelog also,
  please).

- Is there a manpage update?

- Can we rename patch 1/3 from "add flag to ..." to "add mmap flag to
  ...", to distinguish from 2/3 "add mlockall flag ..."?

- The MAP_LOCKONFAULT versus MCL_ON_FAULT inconsistency is
  irritating!  Can we get these consistent please: switch to either
  MAP_LOCK_ON_FAULT or MCL_ONFAULT.

--
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/