[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161019085204.GD7517@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:52:05 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-cris-kernel@...s.com, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] mm: replace __access_remote_vm() write parameter
with gup_flags
On Wed 19-10-16 09:40:45, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:13:52AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 19-10-16 09:59:03, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 13-10-16 01:20:18, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > This patch removes the write parameter from __access_remote_vm() and replaces it
> > > > with a gup_flags parameter as use of this function previously _implied_
> > > > FOLL_FORCE, whereas after this patch callers explicitly pass this flag.
> > > >
> > > > We make this explicit as use of FOLL_FORCE can result in surprising behaviour
> > > > (and hence bugs) within the mm subsystem.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
> > >
> > > So I'm not convinced this (and the following two patches) is actually
> > > helping much. By grepping for FOLL_FORCE we will easily see that any caller
> > > of access_remote_vm() gets that semantics and can thus continue search
> >
> > I am really wondering. Is there anything inherent that would require
> > FOLL_FORCE for access_remote_vm? I mean FOLL_FORCE is a really
> > non-trivial thing. It doesn't obey vma permissions so we should really
> > minimize its usage. Do all of those users really need FOLL_FORCE?
>
> I wonder about this also, for example by accessing /proc/self/mem you trigger
> access_remote_vm() and consequently get_user_pages_remote() meaning FOLL_FORCE
> is implied and you can use /proc/self/mem to override any VMA permissions. I
yes this is the desirable and expected behavior.
> wonder if this is desirable behaviour or whether this ought to be limited to
> ptrace system calls. Regardless, by making the flag more visible it makes it
> easier to see that this is happening.
mem_open already enforces PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists