Re: Rationale for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK?

[Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> hmm... curious that mlockall() succeeds with only a 32kb rlimit....

It's quite obvious with the seteuid() shuffling behind the scenes of the
app, for the mlockall() runs with euid==0, and the later mmap() with euid!=0.

Clearly the application should do both with the same privilege or raise
the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK while running with privileges.

The question that's open is one for the libc guys: malloc(), valloc()
and others seem to use mmap() on some occasions (for some allocation
sizes) - at least malloc/malloc.c comments as of 2.3.4 suggest so -, and
if this isn't orthogonal to mlockall() and set[e]uid() calls, the glibc
is pretty deeply in trouble if the code calls mlockall(MLC_FUTURE) and
then drops privileges.

The function in question appears to be valloc() with glibc 2.3.5.

In this light, mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) is pretty useless, since there is no
way to undo MCL_FUTURE without unlocking all pages at the same time.
Particularly so for setuid apps...

I'm asking the Bcc'd gentleman to reconsider mlockall() and perhaps use
explicit mlock() instead.

-- 
Matthias Andree
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/