[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191107083902.GB3247@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:39:03 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>,
Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com>,
Nosh Minwalla <nosh@...gle.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <ovzxemul@...il.com>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] userfaultfd: require CAP_SYS_PTRACE for
UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 08:41:18AM -0800, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:24 AM Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> wrote:
> > The long term plan is to introduce UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK2 feature
> > flag that uses the ioctl to receive the child uffd, it'll consume more
> > CPU, but it wouldn't require the PTRACE privilege anymore.
>
> Why not just have callers retrieve FDs using recvmsg? This way, you
> retrieve the message packet and the file descriptor at the same time
> and you don't need any appreciable extra CPU use.
I don't follow you here. Can you elaborate on how recvmsg would be used in
this case?
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists