[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181030213557.GE10491@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:35:57 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] prmem: documentation
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:43:14PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 30/10/2018 21:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > So the API might look something like this:
> > > >
> > > > void *p = rare_alloc(...); /* writable pointer */
> > > > p->a = x;
> > > > q = rare_protect(p); /* read-only pointer */
>
> With pools and memory allocated from vmap_areas, I was able to say
>
> protect(pool)
>
> and that would do a swipe on all the pages currently in use.
> In the SELinux policyDB, for example, one doesn't really want to
> individually protect each allocation.
>
> The loading phase happens usually at boot, when the system can be assumed to
> be sane (one might even preload a bare-bone set of rules from initramfs and
> then replace it later on, with the full blown set).
>
> There is no need to process each of these tens of thousands allocations and
> initialization as write-rare.
>
> Would it be possible to do the same here?
What Andy is proposing effectively puts all rare allocations into
one pool. Although I suppose it could be generalised to multiple pools
... one mm_struct per pool. Andy, what do you think to doing that?
> > but we'd probably wrap it in list_for_each_rare_entry(), just to be nicer.
>
> This seems suspiciously close to the duplication of kernel interfaces that I
> was roasted for :-)
Can you not see the difference between adding one syntactic sugar function
and duplicating the entire infrastructure?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
