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
To:     Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>
CC:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        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 February 17, 2017 3:02:33 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Linus Torvalds
><> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists