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: <733527d5-c10d-4f3c-b022-78cc3c21c4d6@lucifer.local>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 19:40:14 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] add process_madvise() flags to modify behaviour

I feel this will get circular. So let's not get lost in the weeds here.

Let's see what others think, and if not too much push-back I'll put out
another RFC for the mcontrol() concept and we can compare to your RFC and
use that to reach consensus if that works for you?

Thanks, Lorenzo