DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com E5B8A883B9
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm,fork,security: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>, riel@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: 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
References: <20170806140425.20937-1-riel@redhat.com>
 <a0d79f77-f916-d3d6-1d61-a052581dbd4a@oracle.com>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <bfdab709-e5b2-0d26-1c0f-31535eda1678@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:58:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a0d79f77-f916-d3d6-1d61-a052581dbd4a@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 486
Lines: 12

On 08/07/2017 08:23 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> If my thoughts above are correct, what about returning EINVAL if one
> attempts to set MADV_DONTFORK on mappings set up for sharing?

That's my preference as well.  If there is a use case for shared or
non-anonymous mappings, then we can implement MADV_DONTFORK with the
semantics for this use case.  If we pick some arbitrary semantics now,
without any use case, we might end up with something that's not actually
useful.

Thanks,
Florian