linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] mm: add new syscall pidfd_set

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: <Y0WE/lEiNvl2ljo1@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:00:14 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Frank van der Linden <fvdl@...gle.com>
Cc:     Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>, corbet@....net,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, wuyun.abel@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: add new syscall pidfd_set_mempolicy()

On Mon 10-10-22 09:22:13, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> For consistency with process_madvise(), I would suggest calling it
> process_set_mempolicy.

This operation has per-thread rather than per-process semantic so I do
not think your proposed naming is better.

> Other than that, this makes sense. To complete
> the set, perhaps a process_mbind() should be added as well. What do
> you think?

Is there any real usecase for this interface? How is the caller supposed
to make per-range decisions without a very involved coordination with
the target process?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs