[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130419110438.GD19523@macbook.localnet>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:04:38 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] netlink: implement memory mapped sendmsg()
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 05:26:26PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 12:31 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:57:43PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 18:47 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > > > Add support for mmap'ed sendmsg() to netlink. Since the kernel validates
> > > > received messages before processing them, the code makes sure userspace
> > > > can't modify the message contents after invoking sendmsg(). To do that
> > > > only a single mapping of the TX ring is allowed to exist and the socket
> > > > must not be shared. If either of these two conditions does not hold, it
> > > > falls back to copying.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Is this resistant against copy_to_process()?
> >
> > I don't know, there's no copy_to_process() function is the tree I'm using.
>
> Sorry, I mean process_vm_writev(). copy_to_process() was the name in an
> earlier version of CMA.
I'm not sure whether process_vm_writev() allows to write to a memory mapped
area and, if so, whether it would invoke vm_ops->open() before doing so.
I'm looking into that, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists