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: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 12:17:12 -0800 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mincore: allow for making sys_mincore() privileged [ Crossed emails ] On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 12:12 PM Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote: > > I am still not completely sure what to return in such cases though; we can > either blatantly lie and always pretend that the pages are resident That's what my untested patch did. Or maybe just claim they are all not present? And again, that patch was entirely untested, so it may be garbage and have some fundamental problem. I also don't know exactly what rule might make most sense, but "you can write to the file" certainly to me implies that you also could know what parts of it are in-core. Who actually _uses_ mincore()? That's probably the best guide to what we should do. Maybe they open the file read-only even if they are the owner, and we really should look at file ownership instead. I tried to make that "can_do_mincore()" function easy to understand and easy to just modify to some sane state. Again, my patch is meant as a "perhaps something like this?" rather than some "this is _exactly_ how it must be done". Take the patch as a quick suggestion, not some final answer. Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists