> On Feb 28, 2018, at 2:12 AM, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 02/27/2018 05:18 AM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:02:25PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >>> On 02/21/2018 03:44 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 08:30:49 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This patches introduces new process_vmsplice system call that combines >>>>> functionality of process_vm_read and vmsplice. >>>> >>>> All seems fairly strightforward. The big question is: do we know that >>>> people will actually use this, and get sufficient value from it to >>>> justify its addition? >>> >>> Yes, that's what bothers us a lot too :) I've tried to start with finding out if anyone >>> used the sys_read/write_process_vm() calls, but failed :( Does anybody know how popular >>> these syscalls are? >> >> Well, process_vm_readv itself is quite popular, it's used by debuggers nowadays, >> see e.g. >> $ strace -qq -esignal=none -eprocess_vm_readv strace -qq -o/dev/null cat /dev/null > > I see. Well, yes, this use-case will not benefit much from remote splice. How about more > interactive debug by, say, gdb? It may attach, then splice all the memory, then analyze > the victim code/data w/o copying it to its address space? > > -- Pavel I may be completely off base, but could a FUSE daemon use this to read memory from the client and dump it to a file descriptor without copying the data into the kernel? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href
