lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC][0/4] InfiniBand userspace verbs implementation
Timur Tabi <timur.tabi@ammasso.com> 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 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-26 06:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans