On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > Well, we use it to figure out whether we _potentially_ need to tear down
> > an VM_MPX-flagged area. There's no guarantee that there will be one.
>
> So what you are saying is, that if user space sets the pointer to NULL
> via the unregister prctl, kernel can safely ignore vmas which have the
> VM_MPX flag set. I really can't follow that logic.
>
> mmap_mpx();
> prctl(enable mpx);
> do lots of crap which uses mpx;
> prctl(disable mpx);
>
> So after that point the previous use of MPX is irrelevant, just
> because we set a pointer to NULL? Does it just look like crap because
> I do not get the big picture how all of this is supposed to work?
do_bounds() will happily map new BTs no matter whether the prctl was
invoked or not. So what's the value of the prctl at all?
The mapping is flagged VM_MPX. Why is this not sufficient?
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
