Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: optionally disable brk()
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20201002171921.3053-1-toiwoton@gmail.com>
 <653873ef-2a57-37e0-1ac3-fba763652b35@redhat.com>
 <2a0f5ade-d770-c36e-50bc-ff0c8e9dacbf@gmail.com>
 <20201005061248.GN4555@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <888e62e0-3979-207b-c516-ddfc6b9f3345@redhat.com>
From:   Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4d325e3e-3139-eded-6781-435fb04fb915@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:47:03 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <888e62e0-3979-207b-c516-ddfc6b9f3345@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5.10.2020 12.13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.10.20 08:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Sat 03-10-20 00:44:09, Topi Miettinen wrote:
>>> On 2.10.2020 20.52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 02.10.20 19:19, Topi Miettinen wrote:
>>>>> The brk() system call allows to change data segment size (heap). This
>>>>> is mainly used by glibc for memory allocation, but it can use mmap()
>>>>> and that results in more randomized memory mappings since the heap is
>>>>> always located at fixed offset to program while mmap()ed memory is
>>>>> randomized.
>>>>
>>>> Want to take more Unix out of Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, why care about disabling? User space can happily use mmap() if
>>>> it prefers.
>>>
>>> brk() interface doesn't seem to be used much and glibc is happy to switch to
>>> mmap() if brk() fails, so why not allow disabling it optionally? If you
>>> don't care to disable, don't do it and this is even the default.
>>
>> I do not think we want to have config per syscall, do we?
> 
> I do wonder if grouping would be a better option then (finding a proper
> level of abstraction ...).

If hardening and compatibility are seen as tradeoffs, perhaps there 
could be a top level config choice (CONFIG_HARDENING_TRADEOFF) for this. 
It would have options
- "compatibility" (default) to gear questions for maximum compatibility, 
deselecting any hardening options which reduce compatibility
- "hardening" to gear questions for maximum hardening, deselecting any 
compatibility options which reduce hardening
- "none/manual": ask all questions like before

-Topi