linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] mm: support madvise(MADV

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: <20151113063802.GF5235@bbox>
Date:	Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:38:02 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
CC:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jason Evans <je@...com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] mm: support madvise(MADV_FREE)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:16:54AM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
> On 13/11/15 01:15 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:21:30AM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
> >>> I also think that the kernel should commit to either zeroing the page
> >>> or leaving it unchanged in response to MADV_FREE (even if the decision
> >>> of which to do is made later on).  I think that your patch series does
> >>> this, but only after a few of the patches are applied (the swap entry
> >>> freeing), and I think that it should be a real guaranteed part of the
> >>> semantics and maybe have a test case.
> >>
> >> This would be a good thing to test because it would be required to add
> >> MADV_FREE_UNDO down the road. It would mean the same semantics as the
> >> MEM_RESET and MEM_RESET_UNDO features on Windows, and there's probably
> >> value in that for the sake of migrating existing software too.
> > 
> > So, do you mean that we could implement MADV_FREE_UNDO with "read"
> > opearation("just access bit marking) easily in future?
> > 
> > If so, it would be good reason to change MADV_FREE from dirty bit to
> > access bit. Okay, I will look at that.
> 
> I just meant testing that the data is either zero or the old data if
> it's read before it's written to. Not having it stay around once there
> is a read. Not sure if that's what Andy meant.

Either zero of old data is gauranteed.
Now:

        MADV_FREE(range)
        A = read from the range
        ...
        ...
        B = read from the range


        A and B could have different value. But value should be old or zero.

But Andy want more strict ABI so he suggested access bit instead of dirty bit.

        MADV_FREE(range)
        A = read from the range
        ...
        ...
        B = read from the range

        A and B cannot have different value.

And now I am thinking if we use access bit, we could implment MADV_FREE_UNDO
easily when we need it. Maybe, that's what you want. Right?
--
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/