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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 17:00:28 +0300 From: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com> To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, X86 ML <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 <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <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 2017-02-21 15:42 GMT+03:00 Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:54:20PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote: >> 2017-02-17 19:50 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>: >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov >> > <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote: >> >> This patch introduces two new prctl(2) handles to manage maximum virtual >> >> address available to userspace to map. >> ... >> > Anyway, can you and Dmitry try to reconcile your patches? >> >> So, how can I help that? >> Is there the patch's version, on which I could rebase? >> Here are BTW the last patches, which I will resend with trivial ifdef-fixup >> after the merge window: >> http://marc.info/?i=20170214183621.2537-1-dsafonov%20()%20virtuozzo%20!%20com > > Could you check if this patch collides with anything you do: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170220131515.GA9502@node.shutemov.name Ok, sorry for the late reply - it was the merge window anyway and I've got urgent work to do. Let's see: I'll need minor merge fixup here: >-#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(TASK_SIZE / 3)) >+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW / 3)) while in my patches: >+#define __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(task_size) (PAGE_ALIGN(task_size / 3)) >+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(TASK_SIZE) This should be just fine with my changes: >- info.high_limit = end; >+ info.high_limit = min(end, DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW); This will need another minor fixup: >-#define MAX_GAP (TASK_SIZE/6*5) >+#define MAX_GAP (DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW/6*5) I've moved it from macro to mmap_base() as local var, which depends on task_size parameter. That's all, as far as I can see at this moment. Does not seems hard to fix. So I suggest sending patches sets in parallel, the second accepted will rebase the set. Is it convenient for you? If you have/will have some questions about my patches, I'll be open to answer. -- Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists