linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Increase default MLOCK

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: <8f219a64-a39f-45f0-a7ad-708a33888a3b@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:55:16 -0500
From:   "Andrew Dona-Couch" <andrew@...acou.ch>
To:     "David Hildenbrand" <david@...hat.com>,
        "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Drew DeVault" <sir@...wn.com>
Cc:     "Ammar Faizi" <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        "io_uring Mailing List" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Jens Axboe" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "Pavel Begunkov" <asml.silence@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase default MLOCK_LIMIT to 8 MiB

Forgive me for jumping in to an already overburdened thread.  But can
someone pushing back on this clearly explain the issue with applying
this patch?

The only concerns I've heard are that it doesn't go far enough.  That
another strategy (that everyone seems to agree would be a fair bit more
effort) could potentially achieve the same goal and then some.  Isn't
that exactly what's meant by "don't let perfection be the enemy of the
good"? The saying is not talking about literal perfection -- the idea is
that you make progress where you can, and that incremental progress and
broader changes are not necessarily in conflict.

This tiny patch could be a step in the right direction.  Why does this
thread need dozens of replies?

Thanks,
Andrew

--
We all do better when we all do better.  -Paul Wellstone