From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: "Michael Kerrisk" <michael.kerrisk@gmx.net>
Cc: rohit.seth@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
arun.sharma@google.com, mtk-lkml@gmx.net, mtk-manpages@gmx.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Expose SHM_HUGETLB in shmctl(id, IPC_STAT, ...)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:38:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051111233824.41075cc9.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4375A5A5.10997.1DF7B02@localhost>
"Michael Kerrisk" <michael.kerrisk@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Bear in mind that the sort of apps we're talking about here are
> > dubiously-written monsters with long and costly upgrade cycles and we tend
> > to not get any reports until many many months after we made a kernel
> > change. It's very costly all round and we need to be cautious.
>
> Andrew,
>
> I am late to this discussion, but for what it's worth, a
> portable application really must use checks of the like
> (perm.mode & 0777 = 0666), because many implementations
> define additional read-only flags for perm.mode:
>
> Tru64 5.1
> #define SHM_LOCKED 01000 /* segment locked in memory */
> #define SHM_REMOVED 02000 /* already removed */
>
> Linux
> #define SHM_DEST 01000 /* segment will be destroyed on last detach */
> #define SHM_LOCKED 02000 /* segment will not be swapped */
>
> HP-UX 11
> # define SHM_CLEAR 01000 /* clear segment on next attach */
> # define SHM_DEST 02000 /* destroy segment when # attached = 0 */
> # define SHM_NOSWAP 010000 /* region for shared memory is memory locked */
> /* (or should be when the region is allocated) */
>
> AIX 5.1
> #define SHM_DEST 02000 /* destroy segment when # attached = 0 */
>
> So the chances are probably good that portable applications
> wouldn't break with Arun's proposal.
The chances of breakage I agree are very low. But non-zero. I'd still
like us to find a way which is completely safe.
> Of course applications
> that were written just for Linux, and don't take care, might
> also be at risk, but I think the risk is probably low.
> A check of the form:
>
> if (mode == 0666|SHM_LOCKED)
>
> instead of:
>
> if (mode & SHM_LOCKED)
>
> is very obtuse.
Yes, but
if ((mode & ~(SHM_LOCKED|SHM_REMOVED)) == 0666)
is pretty perverse, but more likely. Stranger things have
been seen ;)
> This might not change your point of view (there is a theoretical risk
> after all), but I thought it worth mentioning.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-12 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-09 18:46 Arun Sharma
2005-11-10 6:22 ` Andrew Morton
2005-11-10 18:35 ` Arun Sharma
2005-11-10 19:59 ` Andrew Morton
2005-11-10 21:41 ` Arun Sharma
2005-11-10 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2005-11-11 2:49 ` Arun Sharma
2005-11-11 3:12 ` Andrew Morton
2005-11-12 7:19 ` Michael Kerrisk
2005-11-12 7:38 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2005-11-11 7:30 ` William Lee Irwin III
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051111233824.41075cc9.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=arun.sharma@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael.kerrisk@gmx.net \
--cc=mtk-lkml@gmx.net \
--cc=mtk-manpages@gmx.net \
--cc=rohit.seth@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome