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  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:   Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:26:47 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-cris-kernel@...s.com, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly
 pass FOLL_* flags

On Wed 19-10-16 10:23:55, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 10:01 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The question I had earlier was whether this has to be an explicit FOLL
> > flag used by g-u-p users or we can just use it internally when mm !=
> > current->mm
> 
> The reason I chose not to do that was that deferred work gets run under
> a basically random 'current'.  If we just use 'mm != current->mm', then
> the deferred work will sometimes have pkeys enforced and sometimes not,
> basically randomly.

OK, I see (async_pf_execute and ksm ). It makes more sense to me. Thanks
for the clarification.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists