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

[Michal Hocko <mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri 11-08-17 16:11:44, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 08/11/2017 04:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > I am sorry to look too insisting here (I have still hard time to reconcile
> > myself with the madvise (ab)use) but if we in fact want minherit like
> > interface why don't we simply add minherit and make the code which wants
> > to use that interface easier to port? Is the only reason that hooking
> > into madvise is less code? If yes is that a sufficient reason to justify
> > the (ab)use of madvise? If there is a general consensus on that part I
> > will shut up and won't object anymore. Arguably MADV_DONTFORK would fit
> > into minherit API better as well.
> 
> It does, OpenBSD calls it MAP_INHERIT_NONE.
> 
> Could you implement MAP_INHERIT_COPY and MAP_INHERIT_SHARE as well?  Or
> is changing from MAP_SHARED to MAP_PRIVATE and back impossible?

I haven't explored those two very much. Their semantic seems rather
awkward, especially map_inherit_share one. I guess MAP_INHERIT_COPY
would be doable. Do we have to support all modes or a missing support
would disqualify the syscall completely?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs