On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu 25-04-19 13:39:01, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Yes, given MADV_DONTDUMP doesn't imply mlock I thought it'd be more > > consistent to keep those independent. > > Do we want to fail madvise call on VMAs that are not mlocked then? What > if the munlock happens later after the madvise is called? I'm not sure if it's strictly necessary. We already have various combinations of features that only make sense when used together and which can be undermined by later actions. I can see the appeal of designing this in a way that makes it harder to misuse, but is that worth additional implementation complexity?
