From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Introduce first class virtual address spaces Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:21:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <20170315220234.mooiyrzqdsglo4lp@arch-dev> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170315220234.mooiyrzqdsglo4lp@arch-dev> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Till Smejkal Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Andy Lutomirski , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Vineet Gupta , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Steven Miao , Richard Kuo , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , James Hogan , Ralf Baechle , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Till Smejkal wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > VAS segments on the other side would provide a functionality to > > > achieve the same without the need of any mounted filesystem. However, > > > I agree, that this is just a small advantage compared to what can > > > already be achieved with the existing functionality provided by the > > > Linux kernel. > > > > I see this "small advantage" as "resource leak and security problem". > > I don't agree here. VAS segments are basically in-memory files that are > handled by the kernel directly without using a file system. Hence, if an Why do we need yet another mechanism to represent something which looks like a file instead of simply using existing mechanisms and extend them? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org