[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21511994.eBlbEPoKOz@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:07:20 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT_VADDR
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:29:33 AM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Hmm. What if we approached this a bit differently? We could add a
> single new personality bit ADDR_LIMIT_EXPLICIT. Setting this bit
> cause PER_LINUX32_3GB etc to be automatically cleared.
Both the ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT and ADDR_LIMIT_3GB flags I guess?
> When
> ADDR_LIMIT_EXPLICIT is in effect, prctl can set a 64-bit numeric
> limit. If ADDR_LIMIT_EXPLICIT is cleared, the prctl value stops being
> settable and reading it via prctl returns whatever is implied by the
> other personality bits.
I don't see anything wrong with it, but I'm a bit confused now
what this would be good for, compared to using just prctl.
Is this about setuid clearing the personality but not the prctl,
or something else?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists