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  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:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:01:21 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Andi Kleen <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        "" <>,
        linux-mm <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Linux API <>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
> At the very least, I'd want to see
> interface.

That's unrelated, but I guess w could add a MAP_NOUNMAP flag, and then
you can use MAP_FIXED | MAP_NOUNMAP or something.

But that has nothing to do with the 47-vs-56 bit issue.

> How about MAP_LIMIT where the address passed in is interpreted as an
> upper bound instead of a fixed address?

Again, that's a unrelated semantic issue. Right now - if you don't
pass in MAP_FIXED at all, the "addr" argument is used as a starting
value for deciding where to find an unmapped area. But there is no way
to specify the end. That would basically be what the process control
thing would be (not per-system-call, but per-thread ).


Powered by blists - more mailing lists