Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > maybe it is worth moving vm_acct_memory() out of
> > > security_vm_enough_memory()?
> >
> > I think that would be saner, yes. That means that the callers would call
> > vm_acct_memory() after security_enough_memory(), if that succeeded.
>
> I don't like that at all. The implementation of its tests is necessarily
> imprecise, but nonetheless, we do prefer primitives which atomically test
> and reserve. We're not moving from request_region to check_region, are we?
I don't think that it's any racier to move the allocation to after the
check than to have it before the check. If we're worried, take mmap_sem -
most place already do that, but not all.
> But change the naming by all means, it was never good,
> and grew worse when "security_" got stuck on the front.
Yes, renaming it to something like alloc_vm_space() would suit.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |