From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>,
Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
Nick Kralevich <nnk@google.com>, Nosh Minwalla <nosh@google.com>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Add a UFFD_SECURE flag to the userfaultfd API.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:10:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191024151054.GJ9902@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191024090258.GA9802@linux.ibm.com>
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:02:59PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> That's no the reason that UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK does not show up in
> Debian code search, CRIU simply is not there. Debian packages CRIU only in
> experimental and I believe that's not indexed by the code search.
>
> As for the limitations, the races were fixed, I just forgot to update the
> wiki. As for the supported memory types and COW pages, these only affect
> efficiency of post-copy, but not the correctness.
That's what I was hoping for. If the wiki information is stale and
there are no races it is totally plausible that it's being actively
used in production so we need to fix the kernel bug. I was just
checking because I wasn't sure anymore of the status after I read the
wiki.
If the CRIU initialization code that issues the uffd syscall runs as
global root the ABI breaking permission check from Andy sounds the
simplest for a short term fix, because it will be unnoticed by any
production usage with CIRU --lazy-pages.
Then later we could add a UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK2 that will not
require root permission.
Thanks,
Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-24 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-12 19:15 [PATCH 0/7] Harden userfaultfd Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 19:15 ` [PATCH 1/7] Add a new flags-accepting interface for anonymous inodes Daniel Colascione
2019-10-14 4:26 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-14 15:38 ` Jann Horn
2019-10-14 18:15 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-14 18:30 ` Jann Horn
2019-10-15 8:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-12 19:15 ` [PATCH 2/7] Add a concept of a "secure" anonymous file Daniel Colascione
2019-10-14 3:01 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-15 8:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-12 19:15 ` [PATCH 3/7] Add a UFFD_SECURE flag to the userfaultfd API Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 23:10 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-13 0:51 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-13 1:14 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-13 1:38 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-14 16:04 ` Jann Horn
2019-10-23 19:09 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 19:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-23 21:16 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 21:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-23 22:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 23:01 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-23 23:27 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 20:05 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-24 0:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 20:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-24 9:02 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-10-24 15:10 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2019-10-25 20:12 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-10-22 21:27 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-23 4:11 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-23 7:29 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2019-10-23 12:43 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-10-23 17:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-12 19:15 ` [PATCH 4/7] Teach SELinux about a new userfaultfd class Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 23:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-13 0:11 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-13 0:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-12 19:16 ` [PATCH 5/7] Let userfaultfd opt out of handling kernel-mode faults Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 19:16 ` [PATCH 6/7] Allow users to require UFFD_SECURE Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 23:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-12 19:16 ` [PATCH 7/7] Add a new sysctl for limiting userfaultfd to user mode faults Daniel Colascione
2019-10-16 0:02 ` [PATCH 0/7] Harden userfaultfd James Morris
2019-11-15 15:09 ` Stephen Smalley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191024151054.GJ9902@redhat.com \
--to=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lokeshgidra@google.com \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=nnk@google.com \
--cc=nosh@google.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xemul@virtuozzo.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).