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 S935380AbdACWJr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:09:47 -0500
Received: from mail-ua0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]:36743 "EHLO
        mail-ua0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1757019AbdACWJi (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:09:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <21511994.eBlbEPoKOz@wuerfel>
References: <20161227015413.187403-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <3492795.xaneWtGxgW@wuerfel> <CALCETrUCdu3kTBU09gXaSppO7VCm+872zkGnovaZKTXBbY2wTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <21511994.eBlbEPoKOz@wuerfel>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 14:09:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrXmdAnbgjsxw=qTbP2PhVCzE8v3y5XMt8DVa4P9DowsGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT_VADDR
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:29:33 AM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Hmm.  What if we approached this a bit differently?  We could add a
>> single new personality bit ADDR_LIMIT_EXPLICIT.  Setting this bit
>> cause PER_LINUX32_3GB etc to be automatically cleared.
>
> Both the ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT and ADDR_LIMIT_3GB flags I guess?

Yes.

>
>> 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.

--Andy