On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:10:19PM GMT, 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v3:
> * Avoid introducing PR_MADV_SELF and defer a non-pidfd version until later.
Seems like a good plan to decouple this patch from PR_MADV_SELF vs
PIDFD_SELF decision. I am hoping to see the follow up patch as well.
thanks,
Shakeel
