Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:39:03 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
Cc:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
        Nick Kralevich <nnk@google.com>,
        Nosh Minwalla <nosh@google.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <ovzxemul@gmail.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] userfaultfd: require CAP_SYS_PTRACE for
 UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK
References: <1572967777-8812-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com>
 <1572967777-8812-2-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAKOZuev93zDGNPX+ySg_jeUg4Z3zKMcpABekUQvHA01kTVn4=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrX=VmSjD6kLT6tuZQ4Efhc_13vZrw1mo4Z2iKqZTT-bzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191105162424.GH30717@redhat.com>
 <CAKOZuet=g++G+biSP5bU-Rppu6fykU1TVUDj20NapqAYQY4r9A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKOZuet=g++G+biSP5bU-Rppu6fykU1TVUDj20NapqAYQY4r9A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Message-Id: <20191107083902.GB3247@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Daniel,

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 08:41:18AM -0800, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:24 AM Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote:
> > The long term plan is to introduce UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK2 feature
> > flag that uses the ioctl to receive the child uffd, it'll consume more
> > CPU, but it wouldn't require the PTRACE privilege anymore.
> 
> Why not just have callers retrieve FDs using recvmsg? This way, you
> retrieve the message packet and the file descriptor at the same time
> and you don't need any appreciable extra CPU use.

I don't follow you here. Can you elaborate on how recvmsg would be used in
this case?

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.