Re: ptrace and pfn mappings

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

> Switch the mm and do a copy_from_user? (rather than the GUP).
> Sounds pretty ugly :P
> 
> Can you do a get_user_pfns, and do a copy_from_user on the pfn
> addresses? In other words, is the memory / mmio at the end of a
> given address the same from the perspective of any process? It
> is for physical memory of course, which is why get_user_pages
> works...

Doesn't help with the racyness.

> > That means that the ptracing process will temporarily be running in the
> > kernel using a task->active_mm different from task->mm which might have
> > funny side effects due to assumptions that this won't happen here or
> > there, though I don't see any fundamental reasons why it couldn't be
> > made to work.
> > 
> > That do you guys think ? Any better idea ? The problem with mappings
> > like what SPUfs or the DRM want is that they can change (be remapped
> > between HW and backup memory, as described in previous emails), thus we
> > don't want to get struct pages even if available and peek at them as
> > they might not be valid anymore, same with PFNs (we could imagine
> > ioremap'ing those PFN's but that would be racy too). The only way that
> > is guaranteed not to be racy is to do exactly what a user do, that is do
> > user accesses via the target process vm itself....
> 
> What if you hold your per-object lock over the operation? (I guess
> it would have to nest *inside* mmap_sem, but that should be OK).

Over the ptrace operation ? how so ?

Ben.


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>