On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 7:59 AM Andrei Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This change introduces the new system call:
> process_vm_exec(pid_t pid, struct sigcontext *uctx, unsigned long flags,
> siginfo_t * uinfo, sigset_t *sigmask, size_t sizemask)
>
> process_vm_exec allows to execute the current process in an address
> space of another process.
[...]
I still think that this whole API is fundamentally the wrong approach
because it tries to shoehorn multiple usecases with different
requirements into a single API. But that aside:
> +static void swap_mm(struct mm_struct *prev_mm, struct mm_struct *target_mm)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> + struct mm_struct *active_mm;
> +
> + task_lock(tsk);
> + /* Hold off tlb flush IPIs while switching mm's */
> + local_irq_disable();
> +
> + sync_mm_rss(prev_mm);
> +
> + vmacache_flush(tsk);
> +
> + active_mm = tsk->active_mm;
> + if (active_mm != target_mm) {
> + mmgrab(target_mm);
> + tsk->active_mm = target_mm;
> + }
> + tsk->mm = target_mm;
I'm pretty sure you're not currently allowed to overwrite the ->mm
pointer of a userspace thread. For example, zap_threads() assumes that
all threads running under a process have the same ->mm. (And if you're
fiddling with ->mm stuff, you should probably CC linux-mm@.)
As far as I understand, only kthreads are allowed to do this (as
implemented in kthread_use_mm()).
> + switch_mm_irqs_off(active_mm, target_mm, tsk);
> + local_irq_enable();
> + task_unlock(tsk);
> +#ifdef finish_arch_post_lock_switch
> + finish_arch_post_lock_switch();
> +#endif
> +
> + if (active_mm != target_mm)
> + mmdrop(active_mm);
> +}
