Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs 'noautofill' mount option

From: Christoph Hellwig
Date: Tue May 09 2017 - 04:58:31 EST

Next message: Michal Hocko: "Re: [PATCH] asm-generic/io.h: remove unnecessary #include of <linux/vmalloc.h>"
Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode"
In reply to: prakash.sangappa: "Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs 'noautofill' mount option"
Next in thread: Prakash Sangappa: "Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs 'noautofill' mount option"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:12:42PM -0700, prakash.sangappa wrote:
> Regarding #3 as a general feature, do we want to
> consider this and the complexity associated with the
> implementation?

We have to. Given that no one has exclusive access to hugetlbfs
a mount option is fundamentally the wrong interface.

Next message: Michal Hocko: "Re: [PATCH] asm-generic/io.h: remove unnecessary #include of <linux/vmalloc.h>"
Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode"
In reply to: prakash.sangappa: "Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs 'noautofill' mount option"
Next in thread: Prakash Sangappa: "Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs 'noautofill' mount option"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]