linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: add event for exit() notification

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:41:32 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: add event for
 exit() notification

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:44:31 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Allow userfaultfd monitor track termination of the processes that have
> memory backed by the uffd.
> 
> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -774,6 +774,30 @@ void userfaultfd_unmap_complete(struct mm_struct *mm, struct list_head *uf)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +void userfaultfd_exit(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma = mm->mmap;
> +
> +	while (vma) {
> +		struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx = vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx;
> +
> +		if (ctx && (ctx->features & UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT)) {
> +			struct userfaultfd_wait_queue ewq;
> +
> +			userfaultfd_ctx_get(ctx);
> +
> +			msg_init(&ewq.msg);
> +			ewq.msg.event = UFFD_EVENT_EXIT;
> +
> +			userfaultfd_event_wait_completion(ctx, &ewq);
> +
> +			ctx->features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT;
> +		}
> +
> +		vma = vma->vm_next;
> +	}
> +}

And we can do the vma walk without locking because the caller (exit_mm)
knows it now has exclusive access.  Worth a comment?