linux-kernel - Re: Suppress pte soft-dirty bit with UFFDIO

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: <aCNIKm5OJ2h12z2j@x1.local>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 09:24:58 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	criu@...ts.linux.dev, Robert O'Callahan <robert@...llahan.org>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Suppress pte soft-dirty bit with UFFDIO_COPY?

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 10:16:12AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Personally I don't think it's a real issue to have to create a
> sacrificial fd once at process initialization to see what features are
> available. I wouldn't have even said anything if the man page hadn't
> explicitly told me there was another way.

Yes, that's indeed the part that could be confusing and needs fixing.  Just
to keep a record (I have you copied), I sent the man-pages changes here:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250512171922.356408-1-peterx@redhat.com

We can stick with the sacrificial fd until there's a solid clue showing
that we should introduce a new way to probe.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu