From: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
To: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@altlinux.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, zhangyi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 0/5] userfaultfd: add /dev/userfaultfd for fine grained access control
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:56:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220719195628.3415852-1-axelrasmussen@google.com> (raw)
This series is based on torvalds/master.
The series is split up like so:
- Patch 1 is a simple fixup which we should take in any case (even by itself).
- Patches 2-6 add the feature, configurable selftest support, and docs.
Why not ...?
============
- Why not /proc/[pid]/userfaultfd? The proposed use case for this is for one
process to open a userfaultfd which can intercept another process' page
faults. This seems to me like exactly what CAP_SYS_PTRACE is for, though, so I
think this use case can simply use a syscall without the powers CAP_SYS_PTRACE
grants being "too much".
- Why not use a syscall? Access to syscalls is generally controlled by
capabilities. We don't have a capability which is used for userfaultfd access
without also granting more / other permissions as well, and adding a new
capability was rejected [1].
- It's possible a LSM could be used to control access instead. I suspect
adding a brand new one just for this would be rejected, but I think some
existing ones like SELinux can be used to filter syscall access. Enabling
SELinux for large production deployments which don't already use it is
likely to be a huge undertaking though, and I don't think this use case by
itself is enough to motivate that kind of architectural change.
Changelog
=========
v3->v4:
- Picked up an Acked-by on 5/5.
- Updated cover letter to cover "why not ...".
- Refactored userfaultfd_allowed() into userfaultfd_syscall_allowed(). [Peter]
- Removed obsolete comment from a previous version. [Peter]
- Refactored userfaultfd_open() in selftest. [Peter]
- Reworded admin-guide documentation. [Mike, Peter]
- Squashed 2 commits adding /dev/userfaultfd to selftest and making selftest
configurable. [Peter]
- Added "syscall" test modifier (the default behavior) to selftest. [Peter]
v2->v3:
- Rebased onto linux-next/akpm-base, in order to be based on top of the
run_vmtests.sh refactor which was merged previously.
- Picked up some Reviewed-by's.
- Fixed ioctl definition (_IO instead of _IOWR), and stopped using
compat_ptr_ioctl since it is unneeded for ioctls which don't take a pointer.
- Removed the "handle_kernel_faults" bool, simplifying the code. The result is
logically equivalent, but simpler.
- Fixed userfaultfd selftest so it returns KSFT_SKIP appropriately.
- Reworded documentation per Shuah's feedback on v2.
- Improved example usage for userfaultfd selftest.
v1->v2:
- Add documentation update.
- Test *both* userfaultfd(2) and /dev/userfaultfd via the selftest.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/686276b9-4530-2045-6bd8-170e5943abe4@schaufler-ca.com/T/
Axel Rasmussen (5):
selftests: vm: add hugetlb_shared userfaultfd test to run_vmtests.sh
userfaultfd: add /dev/userfaultfd for fine grained access control
userfaultfd: selftests: modify selftest to use /dev/userfaultfd
userfaultfd: update documentation to describe /dev/userfaultfd
selftests: vm: add /dev/userfaultfd test cases to run_vmtests.sh
Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst | 41 +++++++++++-
Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/vm.rst | 3 +
fs/userfaultfd.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++----
include/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h | 4 ++
tools/testing/selftests/vm/run_vmtests.sh | 11 +++-
tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++---
6 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
--
2.37.0.170.g444d1eabd0-goog
next reply other threads:[~2022-07-19 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-19 19:56 Axel Rasmussen [this message]
2022-07-19 19:56 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] selftests: vm: add hugetlb_shared userfaultfd test to run_vmtests.sh Axel Rasmussen
2022-07-19 19:56 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] userfaultfd: add /dev/userfaultfd for fine grained access control Axel Rasmussen
2022-07-19 21:18 ` Peter Xu
2022-07-19 22:32 ` Nadav Amit
2022-07-19 22:45 ` Axel Rasmussen
2022-07-19 23:55 ` Nadav Amit
2022-07-20 2:32 ` Peter Xu
2022-07-20 17:42 ` Nadav Amit
2022-07-20 20:10 ` Axel Rasmussen
2022-07-20 20:14 ` Nadav Amit
2022-08-02 18:46 ` Nadav Amit
2022-07-19 19:56 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] userfaultfd: selftests: modify selftest to use /dev/userfaultfd Axel Rasmussen
2022-07-19 21:23 ` Peter Xu
2022-07-19 19:56 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] userfaultfd: update documentation to describe /dev/userfaultfd Axel Rasmussen
2022-07-19 21:23 ` Peter Xu
2022-07-19 19:56 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] selftests: vm: add /dev/userfaultfd test cases to run_vmtests.sh Axel Rasmussen
2022-07-19 20:56 ` Nadav Amit
2022-07-20 22:16 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] userfaultfd: add /dev/userfaultfd for fine grained access control Schaufler, Casey
2022-07-20 23:04 ` Axel Rasmussen
2022-07-20 23:21 ` Nadav Amit
2022-08-01 17:13 ` Axel Rasmussen
2022-08-01 19:53 ` Nadav Amit
2022-08-01 22:50 ` Axel Rasmussen
2022-08-01 23:19 ` Nadav Amit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220719195628.3415852-1-axelrasmussen@google.com \
--to=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=glebfm@altlinux.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=ldv@altlinux.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox