linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] add process_madvise() flags to modify behaviour

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: <b78e0fd8-e6b9-47c6-bec8-a44a8be242f1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 17:57:48 +0100
From: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] add process_madvise() flags to modify behaviour

On 21/05/2025 17:28, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 05:21:19AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 03:02:09PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>>
> [...]
>>
>> So, something Liam mentioned off-list was the beautifully named
>> 'mmadvise()'. Idea being that we have a system call _explicitly for_
>> mm-wide modifications.
>>
>> With Barry's series doing a prctl() for something similar, and a whole host
>> of mm->flags existing for modifying behaviour, it would seem a natural fit.
>>
>> I could do a respin that does something like this instead.
>>
> 
> Please let's first get consensus on this before starting the work.
> 
> Usama, David, Johannes and others, WDYT?
> 

I would like that. Introducing another method might make the conversation a
lot more complex than it already is?

I have addressed the feedback from Lorenzo for the prctl series, but am
holding back sending it as RFC v4.
The v3 has a NACK on it so I would imagine it would discourage people
from reviewing it. If we are still progressing with sending patches, would it
make sense for me to wait a couple of days to see if there are any more comments
on it and send the RFC v4?