On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 10:04:25AM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 08:52:32AM GMT, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > 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.
>
> PIDFD_SELF should absolutely not be a per-system call thing. It should
> be generic across all pidfd based system calls similar to AT_FDCWD.
>
> IOW, that should be in:
>
> include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h
>
> #define PIDFD_SELF -200
Yes this is what I was saying elsewhere in the thread :) this is why it's
important to have this as a separate enterprise.
And indeed this is the intent, I will be working on a separate patch series
to this effect. It also gives us the space to implement it in calls which
use pidfd where it makes sense and to extend testing accordingly.
