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:   Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:31:41 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        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 08-08-17 14:45:14, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 09:52 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Sure, but actually implementing MADV_WIPEONFORK in a
> way that turns file mapped VMAs into zero page backed
> anonymous VMAs after fork takes no more code than
> implementing it in a way that refuses to work on VMAs
> that have a file backing.
> 
> There is no complexity argument for or against either
> approach.
> 
> The big question is, what is the best for users?
> 
> Should we return -EINVAL when MADV_WIPEONFORK is called
> on a VMA that has a file backing, and only succeed on
> anonymous VMAs?

I would rather be conservative and implement the bare minimum until
there is a reasonable usecase to demand the feature for shared mappings
as well.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs