Re: [FYI] tux3: Core changes

[Daniel Phillips <daniel@phunq.net>]

On 05/17/2015 07:20 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 05/17/2015 09:26 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> On 05/14/2015 03:59 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> The issue is that things like ptrace, AIO, infiniband
>>> RDMA, and other direct memory access subsystems can take
>>> a reference to page A, which Tux3 clones into a new page B
>>> when the process writes it.
>>>
>>> However, while the process now points at page B, ptrace,
>>> AIO, infiniband, etc will still be pointing at page A.
>>
>> All these problems can also happen with truncate+new-extending-write
>>
>> It is the responsibility of the application to take file/range locks
>> to prevent these page-pinned problems.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect a process that is being ptraced
> (potentially without its knowledge) to take special measures
> to protect the ptraced memory from disappearing.
> 
> It is impossible for the debugger to take those special measures
> for anonymous memory, or unlinked inodes.
> 
> I don't think your requirement is workable or reasonable.

Hi Rik,

You are quite right to poke at this aggressively. Whether or not
there is an issue needing fixing, we want to know the details. We
really need to do a deep dive in ptrace and know exactly what it
does, and whether Tux3 creates any new kind of hole. I really know
very little about ptrace at the moment, I only have heard that it
is a horrible hack we inherited from some place far away and a time
long ago.

A little guidance from you would help. Somewhere ptrace must modify
the executable page. Unlike uprobes, which makes sense to me, I did
not find where ptrace actually does that on a quick inspection.
Perhaps you could provide a pointer?

Regards,

Daniel