Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751172AbbD3LuJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:50:09 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com ([209.85.217.178]:36488 "EHLO mail-lb0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750923AbbD3LuG (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:50:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20150429193622.GA11892@node.dhcp.inet.fi> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:50:04 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Regression: Requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN for /proc//pagemap causes application-level breakage From: Mark Williamson To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Mark Seaborn , kernel list , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Pavel Emelyanov , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Linux API , Finn Grimwood , Daniel James Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1636 Lines: 37 On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> >> This's no longer true. After recent fixes for "anon_vma endless growing" new vma >> might reuse old anon_vma from grandparent vma. > > Oh well. I guess that was too simple. > > If Mark is ok with the rule that "it's not reliably if you have two > nested forks" (ie it only works if you exec for every fork you do), it > should still work, right? It sounds like Mark doesn't necessarily need > to handle the *generic* case. Yes, it sounds like that should be OK for us. Our usecase is pretty restricted, so we're a long way off requiring a generic solution. Our code will always fork() a fresh child in which to monitor memory changes. We run the operations we're interested in, use pagemap to figure out "what changed" (by comparing whether the pagemap_entry_t values are different from their parent) and then throw away the child process. Currently our code does an entry-by-entry compare of pagemap, so anything that exposes writes as a change to values in there would allow us to run unmodified. That would be really nice. That said, I think we'd still be OK to modify our own code too if we can find a solution that would continue to function on older kernel releases, -stable trees, etc. Thanks, Mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/