[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5530270.v1BLsanhbo@wuerfel>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 14:55:41 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT_VADDR
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:09:16 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
>
> It's to avid ambiguity as to what happens if you set ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT
> and use the prctl. ISTM it would be nice for the semantics to be
> fully defined in all cases.
>
Ok, got it.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists