Re: [PATCH 08/10] mm: replace __access_remote_vm() write parameter with gup_flags
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] mm: replace __access_remote_vm() write parameter with gup_flags
- From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:06:46 +0100
- Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, adi-buildroot-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-cris-kernel@xxxxxxxx, linux-fbdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20161019085204.GD7517@dhcp22.suse.cz>
- References: <20161013002020.3062-1-lstoakes@gmail.com> <20161013002020.3062-9-lstoakes@gmail.com> <20161019075903.GP29967@quack2.suse.cz> <20161019081352.GB7562@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161019084045.GA19441@lucifer> <20161019085204.GD7517@dhcp22.suse.cz>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:52:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> yes this is the desirable and expected behavior.
>
> > wonder if this is desirable behaviour or whether this ought to be limited to
> > ptrace system calls. Regardless, by making the flag more visible it makes it
> > easier to see that this is happening.
>
> mem_open already enforces PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH
Ah I missed this, that makes a lot of sense, thanks!
I still wonder whether other invocations of access_remote_vm() in fs/proc/base.c
(the principle caller of this function) need FOLL_FORCE, for example the various
calls that simply read data from other processes, so I think the point stands
about keeping this explicit.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]