linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mm: fix off-by-one error in VMA count limit checks

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: <dc14c183-d93e-405a-831a-dca69ede3cd2@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 21:15:05 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, minchan@...nel.org,
 lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, rppt@...nel.org,
 pfalcato@...e.de, kernel-team@...roid.com, android-mm@...gle.com,
 stable@...r.kernel.org, SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
 Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
 Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Ben Segall
 <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
 Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mm: fix off-by-one error in VMA count limit checks

>>> Would this be an acceptable path forward?
>>
>> Possibly, if others like it: my concern was to end a misunderstanding
>> (I'm generally much too slow to get involved in cleanups).
>>
>> Though given that the sysctl is named "max_map_count", I'm not very
>> keen on renaming everything else from map_count to vma_count
>> (and of course I'm not suggesting to rename the sysctl).
> 
> I still believe vma_count is a clearer name for the field, given some
> existing comments already refer to it as vma count. The inconsistency
> between vma_count and sysctl_max_map_count can be abstracted away; and
> the sysctl made non-global.

Yes, to me that part makes perfect sense (taste differs as we know).

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb