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

[Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 08:19 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:

> The other question I was trying to bring up is "What does
> MADV_WIPEONFORK
> mean for various types of mappings?"A A For example, if we allow
> MADV_WIPEONFORK on a file backed mapping what does that mapping look
> like in the child after fork?A A Does it have any connection at all to
> the
> file?A A Or, do we drop all references to the file and essentially
> transform
> it to a private (or shared?) anonymous mapping after fork.A A What
> about
> System V shared memory?A A What about hugetlb?

My current patch turns any file-backed VMA into an empty
anonymous VMA if MADV_WIPEONFORK was used on that VMA.

> If the use case is fairly specific, then perhaps it makes sense to
> make MADV_WIPEONFORK not applicable (EINVAL) for mappings where the
> result is 'questionable'.

That would be a question for Florian and Colm.

If they are OK with MADV_WIPEONFORK only working on
anonymous VMAs (no file mapping), that certainly could
be implemented.

On the other hand, I am not sure that introducing cases
where MADV_WIPEONFORK does not implement wipe-on-fork
semantics would reduce user confusion...

--
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>