Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220719195628.3415852-1-axelrasmussen@google.com>
 <20220719195628.3415852-3-axelrasmussen@google.com> <D43534E1-7982-45EE-8B16-2C4687F49E77@vmware.com>
 <CAJHvVcigVqAibm0JODkiR=Pcd3E14xp0NB6acw2q2enwnrnLSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <D8D7C973-1480-4166-86AF-AD179873B2A4@vmware.com> <YtdpQBrAGJwMnssj@xz-m1.local>
 <3C93275E-B3B8-45CA-808E-0C163DBBB32F@vmware.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C93275E-B3B8-45CA-808E-0C163DBBB32F@vmware.com>
From:   Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:10:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHvVcjs_=vbUbXcm1_vAxatEu9inqkVo_geX7pcW1XqWF=gJw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] userfaultfd: add /dev/userfaultfd for fine grained
 access control
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
        Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@altlinux.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        zhangyi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 10:42 AM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2022, at 7:32 PM, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > =E2=9A=A0 External Email
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 11:55:21PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >> Anyhow, I do want to clarify a bit about the =E2=80=9Ccross-process su=
pport=E2=80=9D
> >> userfaultfd situation. Basically, you can already get cross-process su=
pport
> >> today, by using calling userfaultfd() on the controlled process and ca=
lling
> >> pidfd_open() from another process. It does work and I do not remember =
any
> >> issues that it introduced (in contrast, for instance, to io-uring, tha=
t
> >> would break if you use userfaultfd+iouring+fork today).
> >
> > Do you mean to base it on pidof_getfd()?
>
> autocorrect? :)
>
> I did refer to pidfd_getfd() as a syscall that can be used today by one
> process to control the address space of another process. I did not intend=
 to
> use it for the actual implementation.
>
> > Just want to mention that this will still need collaboration of the tar=
get
> > process as userfaultfd needs to be created explicitly there.  From that=
 POV
> > it's still more similar to general SCM_RIGHTS trick to pass over the fd=
 but
> > just to pass it in a different way.
>
> There are also some tricks you can do with ptrace in order not to need th=
e
> collaboration, but they are admittedly fragile.
>
> > IMHO the core change about having /proc/pid/userfaultfd is skipping tha=
t
> > only last step to create the handle.
>
> Yes. The point that I was trying to make is that there are no open issues
> with adding support for remote process control through
> /proc/pid/userfaultfd. This is in contrast, for example, for using io-uri=
ng
> with userfaultfd. For instance, if you try to use io-uring TODAY with
> userfaultfd (without the async support that I need to add), and you try t=
o
> monitor the fork event, things would break (the new userfaultfd file
> descriptor after fork would be installed on the io-worker thread).
>
> This is all to say that it is really simple to add support for one proces=
s
> monitoring userfaultfd of another process, since I understood that Axel h=
ad
> concerned that this might be utterly broken=E2=80=A6

Mostly I was worried it would be nontrivial to implement, and it isn't
a use case I plan to use so I was hoping to ignore it and defer it to
some future patches. ;)

But, if it "just works" I'm happy to include it in v5.