[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78f05735-cca3-491e-b2d6-c673427efa07@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 16:52:06 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org, corbet@....net,
jorgelo@...omium.org, groeck@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jannh@...gle.com,
sroettger@...gle.com, pedro.falcato@...il.com,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
deraadt@...nbsd.org, usama.anjum@...labora.com, surenb@...gle.com,
merimus@...gle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
enh@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mseal: update mseal.rst
On 10/4/24 9:52 AM, Jeff Xu wrote:
>> above is not a sentence but I don't know how to fix it.
>>
> Would below work ?
>
> Certain destructive madvise behaviors, specifically MADV_DONTNEED,
> MADV_FREE, MADV_DONTNEED_LOCKED, MADV_FREE, MADV_DONTFORK,
> MADV_WIPEONFORK, can pose risks when applied to anonymous memory by
> threads without write permissions. These behaviors have the potential
> to modify region contents by discarding pages, effectively performing
> a memset(0) operation on the anonymous memory.
Yes, that works.
Or at least it explains the problem, like Theo said.
Thanks.
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists