[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 3/6] x86/arch_prctl/vdso: add ARCH_MAP_VDSO_*
On 07/06/2016 05:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Dmitry Safonov <> wrote:
>> Add API to change vdso blob type with arch_prctl.
>> As this is usefull only by needs of CRIU, expose
>> this interface under CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE.
>> + case ARCH_MAP_VDSO_X32:
>> + return do_map_vdso(VDSO_X32, addr, false);
>> + case ARCH_MAP_VDSO_32:
>> + return do_map_vdso(VDSO_32, addr, false);
>> + case ARCH_MAP_VDSO_64:
>> + return do_map_vdso(VDSO_64, addr, false);
>> +#endif
>> +
> This will have an odd side effect: if the old mapping is still around,
> its .fault will start behaving erratically. I wonder if we can either
> reliably zap the old vma (or check that it's not there any more)
> before mapping a new one or whether we can associate the vdso image
> with the vma (possibly by having a separate vm_special_mapping for
> each vdso_image. The latter is quite easy: change vdso_image to embed
> vm_special_mapping and use container_of in vdso_fault to fish the
> vdso_image back out. But we'd have to embed another
> vm_special_mapping for the vvar mapping as well for the same reason.
> I'm also a bit concerned that __install_special_mapping might not get
> all the cgroup and rlimit stuff right. If we ensure that any old
> mappings are gone, then the damage is bounded, but otherwise someone
> might call this in a loop and fill their address space with arbitrary
> numbers of special mappings.

Well, I have deleted code that unmaps old vdso because I didn't saw
a reason why it's bad and wanted to reduce code. But well, now I do see
reasons, thanks.

Hmm, what do you think if I do it a little different way then embedding
vm_special_mapping: just that old hack with vma_ops. If I add a close()
hook there and make there context.vdso = NULL pointer, then I can test
it on remap. This can also have nice feature as restricting partial
munmap of vdso blob. Is this sounds sane?

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-08 03:21    [W:0.078 / U:6.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site