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 13:10:27 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Dave Hansen <>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Andi Kleen <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        "" <>,
        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 1:04 PM, Dave Hansen <> wrote:
> Is this likely to break anything in practice?  Nah.  But it would nice
> to avoid it.

So I go the other way: what *I* would like to avoid is odd code that
is hard to follow. I'd much rather make the code be simple and the
rules be straightforward, and not introduce that complicated
"different address limits" thing at all.

Then, _if_ we ever find a case where it makes a difference, we could
go the more complex route. But not first implementation, and not
without a real example of why we shouldn't just keep things simple.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists