On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:36 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > +#define __HAVE_ARCH_REMAP
> > > +static inline void arch_remap(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > + unsigned long old_start, unsigned long old_end,
> > > + unsigned long new_start, unsigned long new_end)
> > > +{
> > > + /*
> > > + * mremap() doesn't allow moving multiple vmas so we can limit the
> > > + * check to old_start == vdso_base.
> > > + */
> > > + if (old_start == mm->context.vdso_base)
> > > + mm->context.vdso_base = new_start;
> > > +}
> >
> > mremap() doesn't allow moving multiple vmas, but it allows the
> > movement of multi-page vmas and it also allows partial mremap()s,
> > where it will split up a vma.
>
> I.e. mremap() supports the shrinking (and growing) of vmas. In that
> case mremap() will unmap the end of the vma and will shrink the
> remaining vDSO vma.
>
> Doesn't that result in a non-working vDSO that should zero out
> vdso_base?
Right. Now we can't completely prevent the user from shooting itself in
the foot I suppose, though there is a legit usage scenario which is to
move the vDSO around which it would be nice to support. I think it's
reasonable to put the onus on the user here to do the right thing.
Cheers,
Ben.
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
