Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Allow UML kernel to run in a separate host address space | Date | Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:12:51 -0500 | From | Jeff Dike <> |
| |
torvalds@transmeta.com said: > But that is an address space that it should already has access to > through, since it created it in the first place (ie it would fall > under the normal "sys_mm_indirect()" case).
Yes, and so it doesn't fall under ptrace. I think we're in violent agreement here.
> The thing that I _really_ don't want to have is soem uncontrolled way > to generate accesses to existing "struct mm_struct"s, since that is > really dangerous from a security standpoint.
Fine by me. UML has no need for manipulating pre-existing address spaces.
> We could have a PTRACE_GET_MM_FD kind of thing for ptrace (and then > the gdb/tracer can use that to create mappings in the process), but > the reason I want that "hook" to be through ptrace itself is simply > that it's a known interface to control other unrelated processes. > > So if you create the MM's yourself, you can use the indirection > directly. But if you want to control your children or unrelated > processes, you use ptrace to get the hook.
Yup. As far as UML is concerned, this is all fine. It has no need of a PTRACE_GET_MM_FD since it creates all address spaces itself, but other tools might.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |