From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
pedro.falcato@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/madvise: unrestrict process_madvise() for current process
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 10:12:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c96c4cf6-e007-4a19-a830-4a2a073620e7@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240926151019.82902-1-lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
On 9/26/24 17:10, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> The process_madvise() call was introduced in commit ecb8ac8b1f14
> ("mm/madvise: introduce process_madvise() syscall: an external memory
> hinting API") as a means of performing madvise() operations on another
> process.
>
> However, as it provides the means by which to perform multiple madvise()
> operations in a batch via an iovec, it is useful to utilise the same
> interface for performing operations on the current process rather than a
> remote one.
>
> Commit 22af8caff7d1 ("mm/madvise: process_madvise() drop capability check
> if same mm") removed the need for a caller invoking process_madvise() on
> its own pidfd to possess the CAP_SYS_NICE capability, however this leaves
> the restrictions on operation in place.
>
> Resolve this by only applying the restriction on operations when accessing
> a remote process.
>
> Moving forward we plan to implement a simpler means of specifying this
> condition other than needing to establish a self pidfd, perhaps in the form
> of a sentinel pidfd.
>
> Also take the opportunity to refactor the system call implementation
> abstracting the vectorised operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Looks like the destructive modes should work with the vectorized version
too, and with how it returns a partial success.
We'll need a man page update though, right?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-27 8:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-26 15:10 Lorenzo Stoakes
2024-09-26 15:52 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-09-26 16:36 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2024-09-27 8:04 ` Christian Brauner
2024-09-27 8:21 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2024-09-27 8:12 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2024-09-27 8:23 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
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=c96c4cf6-e007-4a19-a830-4a2a073620e7@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=pedro.falcato@gmail.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=surenb@google.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