Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] userfaultfd: support control over mm of remote PIDs
To:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
References: <20210926170637.245699-1-namit@vmware.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <83827672-0996-4c25-9991-697ad443b6b3@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 11:29:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210926170637.245699-1-namit@vmware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 26.09.21 19:06, Nadav Amit wrote:
> From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
> 
> Non-cooperative mode is useful but only for forked processes.
> Userfaultfd can be useful to monitor, debug and manage memory of remote
> processes.
> 
> To support this mode, add a new flag, UFFD_REMOTE_PID, and an optional
> second argument to the userfaultfd syscall. When the flag is set, the
> second argument is assumed to be the PID of the process that is to be
> monitored. Otherwise the flag is ignored.
> 
> The syscall enforces that the caller has CAP_SYS_PTRACE to prevent
> misuse of this feature.

What supposed to happen if the target process intents to use uffd itself?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb