[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160502162211.GA11678@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 18:22:11 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: GUP guarantees wrt to userspace mappings redesign
On 05/02, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 04:15:38PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > - I don't see any check page_count() around __replace_page() in uprobes,
> > > so it can easily replace pinned page.
> >
> > Why it should? even if it races with get_user_pages_fast()... this doesn't
> > differ from the case when an application writes to MAP_PRIVATE non-anonymous
> > region, no?
>
> < I know nothing about uprobes or ptrace in general >
>
> I think the difference is that the write is initiated by the process
> itself, but IIUC __replace_page() can be initiated by other process, so
> it's out of control of the application.
Yes. Just like gdb can insert a breakpoint into the read-only executable vma.
> So we have pages pinned by a driver and the driver expects the pinned
> pages to be mapped into userspace, then __replace_page() kicks in and put
> different page there -- driver's expectation is broken.
Yes... but I don't understand the problem space. I mean, I do not know why
this driver should expect this, how it can be broken, etc.
I do not even understand why "initiated by other process" can make any
difference... Unless this driver somehow controls all threads which could
have this page mapped.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists