linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 6/7] mm: extend process_madvise syscall to support vector arrary

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]

Message-ID: <20190521062421.GD32329@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 08:24:21 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/7] mm: extend process_madvise syscall to support vector
 arrary

On Tue 21-05-19 11:48:20, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:22:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [Cc linux-api]
> > 
> > On Mon 20-05-19 12:52:53, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Currently, process_madvise syscall works for only one address range
> > > so user should call the syscall several times to give hints to
> > > multiple address range.
> > 
> > Is that a problem? How big of a problem? Any numbers?
> 
> We easily have 2000+ vma so it's not trivial overhead. I will come up
> with number in the description at respin.

Does this really have to be a fast operation? I would expect the monitor
is by no means a fast path. The system call overhead is not what it used
to be, sigh, but still for something that is not a hot path it should be
tolerable, especially when the whole operation is quite expensive on its
own (wrt. the syscall entry/exit).

I am not saying we do not need a multiplexing API, I am just not sure
we need it right away. Btw. there was some demand for other MM syscalls
to provide a multiplexing API (e.g. mprotect), maybe it would be better
to handle those in one go?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs