From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:46034 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750760AbdALVvc (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:51:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:51:28 +0100 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [Question] New mmap64 syscall? Message-ID: <20170112215128.GA14063@amd> References: <20161206185440.GA4654@yury-N73SV> <20161207154811.GA15248@yury-N73SV> <14981df2-b120-17c3-a5a8-5cbbd2008c4f@redhat.com> <20170103205437.GA22548@amd> <59af3a6f-f30c-46a5-2d0b-6a7e36668e6b@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59af3a6f-f30c-46a5-2d0b-6a7e36668e6b@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Florian Weimer Cc: Yury Norov , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , szabolcs.nagy@arm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, cmetcalf@ezchip.com, philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com, joseph@codesourcery.com, zhouchengming1@huawei.com, Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com, agraf@suse.de, geert@linux-m68k.org, kilobyte@angband.pl, manuel.montezelo@gmail.com, arnd@arndb.de, pinskia@gmail.com, linyongting@huawei.com, klimov.linux@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org, Nathan_Lynch@mentor.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, christoph.muellner@theobroma-systems.com Message-ID: <20170112215128.pITFyXsrRUXZBhKZr_Thc75bb-_gigRSBiR6XvxF0pI@z> --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu 2017-01-12 17:13:25, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/03/2017 09:54 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >...actually, with strace and batched interface, it will be impossible > >to see what is going on because of races. So I'm not sure if I like > >the batched interface at all... >=20 > I'm not sure if I understand this problem. >=20 > ioctl, fcntl, most socket system calls, even open all have this problem as > well, right? Yes, ioctl() and similar are problematic. Still it is possible to implement secure sandbox using ptrace. Dealing with indirect mmap() would difficult AFAICT. Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlh3+mAACgkQMOfwapXb+vIszACcDtFQSncK+zwKbpRpvasbFveQ WzsAnRvgUbvC3W+fWhGptatInEx+Effa =E+7f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N--