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: <20250521173200.GA1065351@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 13:32:00 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	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>, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] add process_madvise() flags to modify behaviour

On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 05:21:19AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes 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.

That's an interesting idea.

So we'd have THP policies and Barry's FADE_ON_DEATH to start; and it
might also be a good fit for the coredump stuff and ksm if we wanted
to incorporate them into that (although it would duplicate the
existing proc/prctl knobs). The other MMF_s are internal AFAICS.

I think my main concern would be making something very generic and
versatile without having sufficiently broad/popular usecases for it.

But no strong feelings either way. Like I said, I don't have a strong
dislike for prctl(), but this idea would obviously be cleaner if we
think there is enough of a demand for a new syscall.

> I guess let me work that up so we can see how that looks?

I think it's worth exploring!