Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags
- From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:01:27 +0200
- Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>, 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: <5807A427.7010200@linux.intel.com>
- References: <20161013002020.3062-1-lstoakes@gmail.com> <20161018153050.GC13117@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161019085815.GA22239@lucifer> <20161019090727.GE7517@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5807A427.7010200@linux.intel.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
On Wed 19-10-16 09:49:43, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 02:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
> >>> me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check
> >>> mm != current->mm and imply that. Maybe there are some contexts which
> >>> wouldn't work, I haven't checked.
> >>
> >> This flag is set even when /proc/self/mem is used. I've not looked deeply into
> >> this flag but perhaps accessing your own memory this way can be considered
> >> 'remote' since you're not accessing it directly. On the other hand, perhaps this
> >> is just mistaken in this case?
> >
> > My understanding of the flag is quite limited as well. All I know it is
> > related to protection keys and it is needed to bypass protection check.
> > See arch_vma_access_permitted. See also 1b2ee1266ea6 ("mm/core: Do not
> > enforce PKEY permissions on remote mm access").
>
> Yeah, we need the flag to tell us when PKEYs should be applied or not.
> The current task's PKRU (pkey rights register) should really only be
> used to impact access to the task's memory, but has no bearing on how a
> given task should access remote memory.
The question I had earlier was whether this has to be an explicit FOLL
flag used by g-u-p users or we can just use it internally when mm !=
current->mm
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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]