Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:32:03 -0800 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@dnai.com> To: Scott Hess <scott@avantgo.com> Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, freebsd-core@freebsd.org, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mlockall() not supported (2nd query) Message-ID: <3863D843.100453A4@dnai.com> References: <XFMail.991224105248.jdp@polstra.com> <102201bf4e40$f23c3a10$1e80000a@avantgo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Hess wrote: > Does anything bad happen if you mlock() essentially everything? Something > like mlock( NULL, (unsigned)-1), but perhaps more targetted than that. > That would appear to lock all of the VM pages you already are using, but > perhaps not the VM pages you haven't allocated as of yet? It's unclear to me how to lock the stack, for example -- since it grows downward, a call to mlock() would require guessing (or finding) the current allocated size. And, as you note, this doesn't protect any future pages -- more of a problem for the stack than anything. I can easily write a wrapper for malloc/free to handle locking individual chunks -- but I'm unclear on the business of doing the equivalent of a 'mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE)' I would be happy to submit a patch, but I might need some guidance. Cheers, Michael -- QUI ME AMET, CANEM MEUM ETIAM AMET To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3863D843.100453A4>