From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754380AbdJITIs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:08:48 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49182 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751184AbdJITIq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:08:46 -0400
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 0186B820ED
Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=riel@redhat.com
Message-ID: <1507576124.21121.168.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2] madvise.2: Add MADV_WIPEONFORK documentation
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Cc: Colm =?ISO-8859-1?Q?MacC=E1rthaigh?= <colm@allcosts.net>,
        linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, nilal@redhat.com,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 15:08:44 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAKgNAkg8QJHfPfdfYXBU2-eW=_FWY99UYi_6hQejE=q5+66u1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170914130040.6faabb18@cuia.usersys.redhat.com>
         <CAAF6GDdnY2AmzKx+t4ffCFxJ+RZS++4tmWvoazdVNVSYjra_WA@mail.gmail.com>
         <20170914150546.74ad3a9a@cuia.usersys.redhat.com>
         <a1715d1d-7a03-d2db-7a8a-8a2edceae5d1@gmail.com>
         <1505848907.5486.9.camel@redhat.com>
         <CAKgNAkg8QJHfPfdfYXBU2-eW=_FWY99UYi_6hQejE=q5+66u1g@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Mon, 09 Oct 2017 19:08:46 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 21:06 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Rik,
> 
> I have a follow-up question re wipe-on-fork. What are the semantics
> for this setting with respect to fork() and exec()? That is, in the
> child of a fork(), does the flag remain set for the specified address
> range? (My quick read of the source suggests yes, but I have not
> tested.) And, when we do an exec(), my assumption is that the flag is
> cleared for the address range, but it would be good to have
> confirmation.

Indeed, on exec() the flag is cleared, because all
memory regions get replaced on exec().

The flag remains across a fork(), so if a child task
were to fork, the memory would be empty of contents
again in its child. This seems to most closely match
the use case of discarding things like cryptographic
secrets at fork time.