|
Message-ID: <20180622190250.GS1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 15:02:50 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlock2 and memfd_create On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:10:52AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com> [2018-06-21 17:16:03 -0700]: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:43:14PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > + > > > +int mlock2(const void *addr, size_t len, unsigned flags) > > > +{ > > > + if (flags == 0) > > > + return mlock(addr, len); > > > + return syscall(SYS_mlock2, addr, len, flags); > > > > I would prefer another way to support old kernels: > > > > int ret; > > > > ret = syscall(SYS_mlock2, addr, len, flags); > > if (ret == -1 && errno == ENOSYS && flags == 0) > > return mlock(addr, len); > > return ret; > > > > This way works a bit slower on old kernels, but it doesn't have side > > effects if mlock2 is supported. > > > > For example, the user can set seccomp rules, and he will not expect that > > the mlock syscall will be executed, when he calls mlock2() in a code. > > > > mlock2 is documented to be equivalent to mlock if flags==0, > the glibc logic is the same and seccomp (or whatever else > operating on the syscall layer) has to deal with mlock > anyway (unless we change the mlock implementation too). > so i would not be too worried about this. Generally my leaning is not to program around seccomp, and further to treat seccomp filters that forbid one operation but allow a semantically-equivalent (or even logical-permissions-equivalent) one as a bug in the seccomp filter. Yes that does make a little bit more work for anyone writing seccomp filters, but it's positive work -- it's making the filters more-portable, less-specific to a particular libc implementation. Rich
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.