linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm,fork,security: introduce MADV

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 Aug 2017 09:52:11 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        colm@...costs.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, kirill@...temov.name, dave.hansen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm,fork,security: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 11:46:08AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 08:19 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > If the use case is fairly specific, then perhaps it makes sense to
> > make MADV_WIPEONFORK not applicable (EINVAL) for mappings where the
> > result is 'questionable'.
> 
> That would be a question for Florian and Colm.
> 
> If they are OK with MADV_WIPEONFORK only working on
> anonymous VMAs (no file mapping), that certainly could
> be implemented.
> 
> On the other hand, I am not sure that introducing cases
> where MADV_WIPEONFORK does not implement wipe-on-fork
> semantics would reduce user confusion...

It'll simply do exactly what it does today, so it won't introduce any
new fallback code.