[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEVpBaJ3z12p6qfpisu5Fy2sPQhDBvbHsE-PAGNRM2A3P98Y3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:50:04 +0100
From: Mark Williamson <mwilliamson@...o-software.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Mark Seaborn <mseaborn@...omium.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Finn Grimwood <fgrimwood@...o-software.com>,
Daniel James <djames@...o-software.com>
Subject: Re: Regression: Requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN for /proc/<pid>/pagemap
causes application-level breakage
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> This's no longer true. After recent fixes for "anon_vma endless growing" new vma
>> might reuse old anon_vma from grandparent vma.
>
> Oh well. I guess that was too simple.
>
> If Mark is ok with the rule that "it's not reliably if you have two
> nested forks" (ie it only works if you exec for every fork you do), it
> should still work, right? It sounds like Mark doesn't necessarily need
> to handle the *generic* case.
Yes, it sounds like that should be OK for us. Our usecase is pretty
restricted, so we're a long way off requiring a generic solution.
Our code will always fork() a fresh child in which to monitor memory
changes. We run the operations we're interested in, use pagemap to
figure out "what changed" (by comparing whether the pagemap_entry_t
values are different from their parent) and then throw away the child
process.
Currently our code does an entry-by-entry compare of pagemap, so
anything that exposes writes as a change to values in there would
allow us to run unmodified. That would be really nice. That said, I
think we'd still be OK to modify our own code too if we can find a
solution that would continue to function on older kernel releases,
-stable trees, etc.
Thanks,
Mark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists