Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

> On 09/20/16 18:07, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > >> - vvar is highly magical. IMO letting it get mapped with VM_MAYWRITE > >> is asking for trouble, as anything that writes it will COW it, leading > >> to strange malfunctions. > >> > > The vvar page obviously needs to be mapped MAP_SHARED, and

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

> On 09/20/16 18:07, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > >> - vvar is highly magical. IMO letting it get mapped with VM_MAYWRITE > >> is asking for trouble, as anything that writes it will COW it, leading > >> to strange malfunctions. > >> > > The vvar page obviously needs to be mapped MAP_SHARED, and

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On 09/20/16 18:07, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> - vvar is highly magical. IMO letting it get mapped with VM_MAYWRITE >> is asking for trouble, as anything that writes it will COW it, leading >> to strange malfunctions. >> The vvar page obviously needs to be mapped MAP_SHARED, and the underlying

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On 09/20/16 18:07, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> - vvar is highly magical. IMO letting it get mapped with VM_MAYWRITE >> is asking for trouble, as anything that writes it will COW it, leading >> to strange malfunctions. >> The vvar page obviously needs to be mapped MAP_SHARED, and the underlying

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On 09/20/16 17:54, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > - If vvar is in the same inode, then that inode won't be a valid ELF > image, because the ELF header won't be in the right place. So the vvar ought to move into an actual ELF segment, which is probably The Right Thing anyway. > - vvar is highly

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On 09/20/16 17:54, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > - If vvar is in the same inode, then that inode won't be a valid ELF > image, because the ELF header won't be in the right place. So the vvar ought to move into an actual ELF segment, which is probably The Right Thing anyway. > - vvar is highly

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 09/20/16 17:22, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> The more I'm thinking about this, why don't we simply have these (the >> various possible vdsos as well as vvar) as actual files in sysfs instead >> of introducing a new

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 09/20/16 17:22, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> The more I'm thinking about this, why don't we simply have these (the >> various possible vdsos as well as vvar) as actual files in sysfs instead >> of introducing a new filesystem? I don't

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On 09/20/16 17:22, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > The more I'm thinking about this, why don't we simply have these (the > various possible vdsos as well as vvar) as actual files in sysfs instead > of introducing a new filesystem? I don't believe sysfs actually has to > be mounted in order for sysfs

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On 09/20/16 17:22, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > The more I'm thinking about this, why don't we simply have these (the > various possible vdsos as well as vvar) as actual files in sysfs instead > of introducing a new filesystem? I don't believe sysfs actually has to > be mounted in order for sysfs

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

The more I'm thinking about this, why don't we simply have these (the various possible vdsos as well as vvar) as actual files in sysfs instead of introducing a new filesystem? I don't believe sysfs actually has to be mounted in order for sysfs files to have an inode. It could also be in procfs,

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

The more I'm thinking about this, why don't we simply have these (the various possible vdsos as well as vvar) as actual files in sysfs instead of introducing a new filesystem? I don't believe sysfs actually has to be mounted in order for sysfs files to have an inode. It could also be in procfs,

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

2016-08-26 17:42 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com>: > 2016-08-26 17:32 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski : >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2016-08-26 2:00 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : On August 25,

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

2016-08-26 17:42 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com>: > 2016-08-26 17:32 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski : >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2016-08-26 2:00 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

2016-08-26 17:32 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski : > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2016-08-26 2:00 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : >>> On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> >>> wrote:

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

2016-08-26 17:32 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski : > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2016-08-26 2:00 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : >>> On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: 2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H.

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-08-26 2:00 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : >> On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : On

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-08-26 2:00 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : >> On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT,

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

2016-08-26 2:00 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : > On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : >>> On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT, Dmitry Safonov >> wrote:

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

2016-08-26 2:00 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : > On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : >>> On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT, Dmitry Safonov >> wrote: This patches set is cleanly RFC and is not supposed to

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> wrote: >2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : >> On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT, Dmitry Safonov > wrote: >>>This patches set is cleanly RFC and is not supposed to be applied.

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454...@gmail.com> wrote: >2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : >> On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT, Dmitry Safonov > wrote: >>>This patches set is cleanly RFC and is not supposed to be applied. >>>Also for RFC time it builds only on

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : > On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT, Dmitry Safonov > wrote: >>This patches set is cleanly RFC and is not supposed to be applied. >>Also for RFC time it builds only on x86_64. >> >>So, in a mail thread Oleg told

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin : > On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT, Dmitry Safonov > wrote: >>This patches set is cleanly RFC and is not supposed to be applied. >>Also for RFC time it builds only on x86_64. >> >>So, in a mail thread Oleg told that it would be worth to introduce

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT, Dmitry Safonov wrote: >This patches set is cleanly RFC and is not supposed to be applied. >Also for RFC time it builds only on x86_64. > >So, in a mail thread Oleg told that it would be worth to introduce >vm_file >for vdso mappings as

Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT, Dmitry Safonov wrote: >This patches set is cleanly RFC and is not supposed to be applied. >Also for RFC time it builds only on x86_64. > >So, in a mail thread Oleg told that it would be worth to introduce >vm_file >for vdso mappings as currently uprobes can not