Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm,fork,security: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK

On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 15:46 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

On Mon 07-08-17 15:22:57, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

This is an user visible API so make sure you CC linux-api (added)

On Sun 06-08-17 10:04:23, Rik van Riel wrote:

quoted

A further complication is the proliferation of clone flags,
programs bypassing glibc's functions to call clone directly,
and programs calling unshare, causing the glibc pthread_atfork
hook to not get called.

It would be better to have the kernel take care of this
automatically.

This is similar to the OpenBSD minherit syscall with
MAP_INHERIT_ZERO:

    https://man.openbsd.org/minherit.2

I would argue that a MAP_$FOO flag would be more appropriate. Or do
you
see any cases where such a special mapping would need to change the
semantic and inherit the content over the fork again?

I do not like the madvise because it is an advise and as such it can
be
ignored/not implemented and that shouldn't have any correctness
effects
on the child process.

Too late for that. VM_DONTFORK is already implemented
through MADV_DONTFORK & MADV_DOFORK, in a way that is
very similar to the MADV_WIPEONFORK from these patches.

I wonder if that was done because MAP_* flags are a
bitmap, with a very limited number of values as a result,
while MADV_* constants have an essentially unlimited
numerical namespace available.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>