linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX

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

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 15:11:52 -0800
From:   hpa@...or.com
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        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>,
        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 February 17, 2017 3:02:33 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>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?

Let's not, please.

But we really want this interface anyway.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.