Re: [RFC] shmgetfd idea

[John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>]

On 01/27/2014 05:53 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:37 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Anyway, I just wanted to submit this sketched out idea as food for
>> thought to see if there was any objection or interest (I've got a draft
>> patch I'll send out once I get a chance to test it). So let me know if
>> you have any feedback or comments.
> The reason "kdbus-memfd" exists is primarily the sealing.
[snip]
> It would be nice if we can generalize the whole memfd logic, but the
> shmem allocation facility alone, without the sealing function cannot
> replace kdbus-memfd.

Yes. Quite understood. And I too hope to discuss how the sealing feature
could be generalized when the code is submitted for review. I just
figured I'd start here, so when that time comes we have a sketch for
what the rest of the parts that would be needed are.


> We would need secure sealing right from the start for the kdbus use
> case; other than that, there are no specific requirements from the
> kdbus side.

Thanks for the clarifications!

-john

--
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>