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  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:   Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:09:16 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/madvise: allow process_madvise operations on
 entire memory range

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:44 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 09:27:46PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > Can we just use one element in iovec to indicate entire address rather
> > > > than using up the reserved flags?
> > > >
> > > >         struct iovec {
> > > >                 .iov_base = NULL,
> > > >                 .iov_len = (~(size_t)0),
> > > >         };
> > >
> > > In addition to Suren's objections, I think it's also worth considering
> > > how this looks in terms of compat API. If a compat process does
> > > process_madvise() on another compat process, it would be specifying
> > > the maximum 32-bit number, rather than the maximum 64-bit number, so
> > > you'd need special code to catch that case, which would be ugly.
> > >
> > > And when a compat process uses this API on a non-compat process, it
> > > semantically gets really weird: The actual address range covered would
> > > be larger than the address range specified.
> > >
> > > And if we want different access checks for the two flavors in the
> > > future, gating that different behavior on special values in the iovec
> > > would feel too magical to me.
> > >
> > > And the length value SIZE_MAX doesn't really make sense anyway because
> > > the length of the whole address space would be SIZE_MAX+1, which you
> > > can't express.
> > >
> > > So I'm in favor of a new flag, and strongly against using SIZE_MAX as
> > > a magic number here.
> >
> > Yes, using SIZE_MAX is a horrible interface in this case.  I'm not
> > a huge fan of a flag either.  What is the use case for the madvise
> > to all of a processes address space anyway?
>
> Thanks for the feedback! The use case is userspace memory reaping
> similar to oom-reaper. Detailed justification is here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20201124053943.1684874-1-surenb@google.com

Actually this post in the most informative and includes test results:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/CAJuCfpGz1kPM3G1gZH+09Z7aoWKg05QSAMMisJ7H5MdmRrRhNQ@mail.gmail.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists