[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170810152352.GZ23863@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:23:52 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: riel@...hat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, fweimer@...hat.com, 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 2/2] mm,fork: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK
On Sun 06-08-17 10:04:25, Rik van Riel wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index 17921b0390b4..db1fb2802ecc 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -659,6 +659,13 @@ static __latent_entropy int dup_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm,
> tmp->vm_flags &= ~(VM_LOCKED | VM_LOCKONFAULT);
> tmp->vm_next = tmp->vm_prev = NULL;
> file = tmp->vm_file;
> +
> + /* With VM_WIPEONFORK, the child gets an empty VMA. */
> + if (tmp->vm_flags & VM_WIPEONFORK) {
> + tmp->vm_file = file = NULL;
> + tmp->vm_ops = NULL;
> + }
What about VM_SHARED/|VM)MAYSHARE flags. Is it OK to keep the around? At
least do_anonymous_page SIGBUS on !vm_ops && VM_SHARED. Or do I miss
where those flags are cleared?
> +
> if (file) {
> struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> struct address_space *mapping = file->f_mapping;
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists