[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c8cda773-b28d-f35f-7f18-6735584cb173@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:11:44 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@...costs.net>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dave.hansen@...el.com, kirill@...temov.name,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, luto@...capital.net, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm,fork,security: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK
On 08/11/2017 04:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am sorry to look too insisting here (I have still hard time to reconcile
> myself with the madvise (ab)use) but if we in fact want minherit like
> interface why don't we simply add minherit and make the code which wants
> to use that interface easier to port? Is the only reason that hooking
> into madvise is less code? If yes is that a sufficient reason to justify
> the (ab)use of madvise? If there is a general consensus on that part I
> will shut up and won't object anymore. Arguably MADV_DONTFORK would fit
> into minherit API better as well.
It does, OpenBSD calls it MAP_INHERIT_NONE.
Could you implement MAP_INHERIT_COPY and MAP_INHERIT_SHARE as well? Or
is changing from MAP_SHARED to MAP_PRIVATE and back impossible?
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists