[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC][0/4] InfiniBand userspace verbs implementation
    Timur Tabi <> wrote:
    > Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > I'm referring to an application which uses your syscalls to obtain pinned
    > > memory and uses munlock() so that it may then use your syscalls to obtain
    > > evem more pinned memory. With the objective of taking the machine down.
    > I'm in favor of having drivers call do_mlock() and do_munlock() on behalf of the
    > application. All we need to do is export those functions, and my driver can call them.
    > However, that still doesn't prevent an app from calling munlock().

    Precisely. That's why I suggested that we have an alternative vma->vm_flag
    bit which behaves in a similar manner to VM_LOCKED (say, VM_LOCKED_KERNEL),
    only userspace cannot alter it.

    > But I don't understand the distinction between having the driver call do_mlock() vs. the
    > application calling mlock(). Won't we still have the same problems? A malicious app can
    > just call our driver instead of calling mlock() or munlock(). The driver won't know the
    > difference between an authorized app and an unauthorized one.

    The driver will set VM_LOCKED_KERNEL, not VM_LOCKED.

    > Besides, isn't the whole point behind RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to limit how much one process can lock?

    Sure. The internal setting of VM_LOCKED_KERNEL should still use
    RLIMIT_MEMLOCK accounting.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-26 06:41    [W:0.020 / U:0.572 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site