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 S1760553AbdADN60 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:58:26 -0500
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([217.72.192.75]:56498 "EHLO
        mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1030834AbdADN6X (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:58:23 -0500
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT_VADDR
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 14:55:41 +0100
Message-ID: <5530270.v1BLsanhbo@wuerfel>
User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-34-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXmdAnbgjsxw=qTbP2PhVCzE8v3y5XMt8DVa4P9DowsGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161227015413.187403-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <21511994.eBlbEPoKOz@wuerfel> <CALCETrXmdAnbgjsxw=qTbP2PhVCzE8v3y5XMt8DVa4P9DowsGA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ihBEyPfMZsPh1N4BulmyvtS/tNmz9J32PGaVj3pSOCAwpTkQ+jU
 bxeBxVZj/62u4/OmIVvdYFkZi5N/hHK+PGFFdPW2glkF2cuYy16NBwgjX9P5vs+qYuzc8R7
 UJsmVIPgPZgGjk4hWpmpRjhCW0AFpJwt41lQOcqjI8uD7xSW3Vuq7CZiFmYURJR/1SOIv5P
 xJSN8/27hmJH9cnJo+9xA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:Pe0o7vsWd8I=:drsmFeN0kCg9t22ZqXJWlF
 1RBKyX0+AK8yEERVeoP7mM9PyHpskF+D583Oj7chQD7uIkGu32v5Hk6CVHQvMWX7HlnZCOl67
 /AOx7VQ88B89RmwQLFh+kKWyZKavS6GlZgP6koPbESyDegZL1Q/lgIq1hfMQmkGolmb2DQXco
 u+5Fyu3WvFDORBenY/d3iqtNnTIx9MfY9wLyqZ4gzinUAHRRjI4s8GJZe8NdTM0I04GhM0k7I
 fP3fI7IpHr/e6HWQR/3I3rx1LZcdmegxUNQKFvE6IgnLABjo/+yfc9Co0sB5wXtQY1p93J3SM
 M1KBt0mm8J6rpdz+ELiJFedVYEuuq8fNZoHZdBJLppVQnJoOOCGfsXP4YRueakIAPNbbAXQGv
 xosgWSJKTvs6gbfyM6VHE6LuKF8dL+Yke7dDdkGESRyMctfwTZDtC2Efwre7IYjFYZNX9FiUA
 PB3pNs3WpJl1LIMmyi6ObQfxJqAVEczmplY9uD2QfZ+vRH2O5PD+XTnOkuEloceAmeLsts/1J
 dmb1zyKzmAYLXLp9Iwg43KZF3NA+oECE04BMtLMPMIqqkgOK902aWnzMVtFj2+OhUUfTBg4YV
 Wk1CeS5Mhvs3i1W6yIdFMMqvAvmKsanFD3TBSGQUOu8EDMZjeQ8CXbK5mjij8XNSj3q0u0DBl
 Ru1bQntaIaN3ppBeIdubxxIQYQ6yReE3ygoLxGLrFo1B4VyVSJ5/5ww+9LgjgEMDHxNx1/gfB
 JQlw7oknAtqQtJZ+
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:09:16 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >> When
> >> ADDR_LIMIT_EXPLICIT is in effect, prctl can set a 64-bit numeric
> >> limit.  If ADDR_LIMIT_EXPLICIT is cleared, the prctl value stops being
> >> settable and reading it via prctl returns whatever is implied by the
> >> other personality bits.
> >
> > I don't see anything wrong with it, but I'm a bit confused now
> > what this would be good for, compared to using just prctl.
> >
> > Is this about setuid clearing the personality but not the prctl,
> > or something else?
> 
> It's to avid ambiguity as to what happens if you set ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT
> and use the prctl.  ISTM it would be nice for the semantics to be
> fully defined in all cases.
> 

Ok, got it.

	Arnd