From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752492AbaDBEI1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Apr 2014 00:08:27 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:43915 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750707AbaDBEI0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Apr 2014 00:08:26 -0400 Message-ID: <533B8CE6.8090401@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:07:02 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Stultz , Johannes Weiner CC: LKML , Andrew Morton , Android Kernel Team , Robert Love , Mel Gorman , Hugh Dickins , Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Dmitry Adamushko , Neil Brown , Andrea Arcangeli , Mike Hommey , Taras Glek , Jan Kara , KOSAKI Motohiro , Michel Lespinasse , Minchan Kim , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Volatile Ranges (v12) & LSF-MM discussion fodder References: <1395436655-21670-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <20140401212102.GM4407@cmpxchg.org> <533B8C2D.9010108@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <533B8C2D.9010108@linaro.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/01/2014 09:03 PM, John Stultz wrote: > > So, maybe its best to ignore the fact that folks want to do semi-crazy > user-space faulting via SIGBUS. At least to start with. Lets look at the > semantic for the "normal" mark volatile, never touch the pages until you > mark non-volatile - basically where accessing volatile pages is similar > to a use-after-free bug. > > So, for the most part, I'd say the proposed SIGBUS semantics don't > complicate things for this basic use-case, at least when compared with > things like zero-fill. If an applications accidentally accessed a > purged volatile page, I think SIGBUS is the right thing to do. They most > likely immediately crash, but its better then them moving along with > silent corruption because they're mucking with zero-filled pages. > > So between zero-fill and SIGBUS, I think SIGBUS makes the most sense. If > you have a third option you're thinking of, I'd of course be interested > in hearing it. > People already do SIGBUS for mmap, so there is nothing new here. > Now... once you've chosen SIGBUS semantics, there will be folks who will > try to exploit the fact that we get SIGBUS on purged page access (at > least on the user-space side) and will try to access pages that are > volatile until they are purged and try to then handle the SIGBUS to fix > things up. Those folks exploiting that will have to be particularly > careful not to pass volatile data to the kernel, and if they do they'll > have to be smart enough to handle the EFAULT, etc. That's really all > their problem, because they're being clever. :) Yep. -hpa