Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1487745
| From | "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs) |
| Date | 2016-09-21 03:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sjEcV-2eq-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <sa9UK-619-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <sacSB-84O-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sjDAe-1MD-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <sjDJT-1PH-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sjE3f-1Wa-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 09/20/16 17:54, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > - If vvar is in the same inode, then that inode won't be a valid ELF > image, because the ELF header won't be in the right place. So the vvar ought to move into an actual ELF segment, which is probably The Right Thing anyway. > - vvar is highly magical. IMO letting it get mapped with VM_MAYWRITE > is asking for trouble, as anything that writes it will COW it, leading > to strange malfunctions. > > - vvar can, and has, had IO pages in it. This means that the actual > cache types can vary page-to-page in the vvar area, which is not > something that ordinary files do. Neither of these are any different than many devices, or various files in procfs. > My personal preference is to let them both be real struct file * > objects (possibly shared between all processes of the same vdso ABI) > but to prevent user code from ever creating an fd referring to one of > these files. Why? It would help people doing weird things like process snapshotting or bimodal execution enormously. We want to share an inode, obviously; the pointer is another issue. > Also, if we let the users get an fd pointing to the vdso, then we're > more or less committing to never having contents in the vdso text that > vary per-process. Are we okay with that. This might be a reason to put these objects in procfs rather than sysfs, but I have to admit that this seems *extremely* far fetched to me. Obviously they vary per process in the sense that there are already several to choose from. In the case of process-unique vdsos there would be a large number of them, of course. -hpa
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs) "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-09-21 02:30 +0200
Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs) "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-09-21 02:40 +0200
Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs) Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-09-21 03:00 +0200
Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs) "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-09-21 03:10 +0200
Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs) "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-09-21 03:20 +0200
Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs) Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-09-21 08:50 +0200
csiph-web