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 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:02:33 -0800 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote: >> >> At the very least, I'd want to see >> MAP_FIXED_BUT_DONT_BLOODY_UNMAP_ANYTHING. I *hate* the current >> 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 ). > What I'm trying to say is: if we're going to do the route of 48-bit limit unless a specific mmap call requests otherwise, can we at least have an interface that doesn't suck?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists