Re: [Bug] mlockall() not working properly in 2.6.x

[Zan Lynx <zlynx@acm.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1181 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 17:47 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2005-12-19 at 18:27 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > > > that we did this because inheriting MCL_FUTURE is standards-incorrect.
> > > 
> > > Oh! So how can I make programs unswappable with kernel 2.6.x then?
> > 
> > That would mean that you cannot just exec() another program that will
> > also be mlockall()ed. The new program has to do that on its own...
> 
> mlockall MCL_FUTURE applies to this image only and the 2.6 behaviour is
> correct if less useful in some ways. It would be possible to add an
> inheriting MCL_ flag that was Linux specific but then how do you control
> the depth of inheritance ? If that isn't an issue it looks the easiest.
> 
> Another possibility would be pmlockall(pid, flag), but that looks even
> more nasty if it races an exec.

How about clearing MCL_FUTURE on fork but allow exec to inherit it?
That way a parent process could fork, mlockall in the child and exec a
memlocked child.  A regular fork,exec by a memlocked parent would not
create a memlocked child.

Seems less messy than a new flag, while keeping the benefits.
-- 
Zan Lynx <zlynx@acm.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]