From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752120AbdHHQwP (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:52:15 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:45992 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752182AbdHHQwO (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:52:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 09:52:11 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Rik van Riel Cc: Mike Kravetz , Florian Weimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, colm@allcosts.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org, luto@amacapital.net, wad@chromium.org, mingo@kernel.org, kirill@shutemov.name, dave.hansen@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm,fork,security: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK Message-ID: <20170808165211.GE31390@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20170806140425.20937-1-riel@redhat.com> <1502198148.6577.18.camel@redhat.com> <0324df31-717d-32c1-95ef-351c5b23105f@oracle.com> <1502207168.6577.25.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1502207168.6577.25.camel@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 11:46:08AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 08:19 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > If the use case is fairly specific, then perhaps it makes sense to > > make MADV_WIPEONFORK not applicable (EINVAL) for mappings where the > > result is 'questionable'. > > That would be a question for Florian and Colm. > > If they are OK with MADV_WIPEONFORK only working on > anonymous VMAs (no file mapping), that certainly could > be implemented. > > On the other hand, I am not sure that introducing cases > where MADV_WIPEONFORK does not implement wipe-on-fork > semantics would reduce user confusion... It'll simply do exactly what it does today, so it won't introduce any new fallback code.