Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1712508

Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm,fork: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:28:29 -0400 riel@redhat.com wrote:

> From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> 
> Introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK semantics, which result in a VMA being
> empty in the child process after fork. This differs from MADV_DONTFORK
> in one important way.
> 
> If a child process accesses memory that was MADV_WIPEONFORK, it
> will get zeroes. The address ranges are still valid, they are just empty.
> 
> If a child process accesses memory that was MADV_DONTFORK, it will
> get a segmentation fault, since those address ranges are no longer
> valid in the child after fork.
> 
> Since MADV_DONTFORK also seems to be used to allow very large
> programs to fork in systems with strict memory overcommit restrictions,
> changing the semantics of MADV_DONTFORK might break existing programs.
> 
> MADV_WIPEONFORK only works on private, anonymous VMAs.
> 
> The use case is libraries that store or cache information, and
> want to know that they need to regenerate it in the child process
> after fork.
> 
> Examples of this would be:
> - systemd/pulseaudio API checks (fail after fork)
>   (replacing a getpid check, which is too slow without a PID cache)
> - PKCS#11 API reinitialization check (mandated by specification)
> - glibc's upcoming PRNG (reseed after fork)
> - OpenSSL PRNG (reseed after fork)
> 
> The security benefits of a forking server having a re-inialized
> PRNG in every child process are pretty obvious. However, due to
> libraries having all kinds of internal state, and programs getting
> compiled with many different versions of each library, it is
> unreasonable to expect calling programs to re-initialize everything
> manually after fork.
> 
> A further complication is the proliferation of clone flags,
> programs bypassing glibc's functions to call clone directly,
> and programs calling unshare, causing the glibc pthread_atfork
> hook to not get called.
> 
> It would be better to have the kernel take care of this automatically.

I'll add "The patch also adds MADV_KEEPONFORK, to undo the effects of a
prior MADV_WIPEONFORK." here.

I guess it isn't worth mentioning that these things can cause VMA
merges and splits. 

> --- a/mm/madvise.c
> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> @@ -80,6 +80,17 @@ static long madvise_behavior(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  		}
>  		new_flags &= ~VM_DONTCOPY;
>  		break;
> +	case MADV_WIPEONFORK:
> +		/* MADV_WIPEONFORK is only supported on anonymous memory. */
> +		if (vma->vm_file || vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) {
> +			error = -EINVAL;
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +		new_flags |= VM_WIPEONFORK;
> +		break;
> +	case MADV_KEEPONFORK:
> +		new_flags &= ~VM_WIPEONFORK;
> +		break;
>  	case MADV_DONTDUMP:
>  		new_flags |= VM_DONTDUMP;
>  		break;

It seems odd to permit MADV_KEEPONFORK against other-than-anon vmas?

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm,fork: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-16 01:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm,fork: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> - 2017-08-16 04:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm,fork: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-18 01:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm,fork: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> - 2017-08-18 18:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm,fork: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-18 20:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm,fork: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> - 2017-08-19 02:10 +0200

csiph-web