On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:36 PM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 8:34 PM Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > 1) why don't you enforce the block of kernel initiated faults with
> >seccomp-bpf instead of adding a sysctl value 2? Is the sysctl just
> >an optimization to remove a
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 8:34 PM Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 03:11:16PM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > There has been an emphasis that Android is probably the only user for
> > the restriction of userfaults from kernel-space and that it wouldn’t
> > be useful
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 03:11:16PM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> There has been an emphasis that Android is probably the only user for
> the restriction of userfaults from kernel-space and that it wouldn’t
> be useful anywhere else. I humbly disagree! There are various areas
> where the
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:44 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 05:43:02PM -0700, Nick Kralevich wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:40 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 05:13:28PM -0700, Nick Kralevich wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 05:43:02PM -0700, Nick Kralevich wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:40 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 05:13:28PM -0700, Nick Kralevich wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:30 AM Lokesh Gidra
> > > wrote:
> > > > From the discussion so far
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:40 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 05:13:28PM -0700, Nick Kralevich wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:30 AM Lokesh Gidra
> > wrote:
> > > From the discussion so far it seems that there is a consensus that
> > > patch 1/2 in this series
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 05:13:28PM -0700, Nick Kralevich wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:30 AM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > From the discussion so far it seems that there is a consensus that
> > patch 1/2 in this series should be upstreamed in any case. Is there
> > anything that is pending on
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:30 AM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> From the discussion so far it seems that there is a consensus that
> patch 1/2 in this series should be upstreamed in any case. Is there
> anything that is pending on that patch?
That's my reading of this thread too.
> > > Unless I'm
Daniel, the original contributor of this patchset, has moved to
another company. Adding his personal email, in case he still wants to
be involved.
>From the discussion so far it seems that there is a consensus that
patch 1/2 in this series should be upstreamed in any case. Is there
anything that
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:17 PM Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:17:20PM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > Adding the Android kernel team in the discussion.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken that you can already enforce bit 1 of the second
> parameter of the userfaultfd syscall to be
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:17:20PM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> Adding the Android kernel team in the discussion.
Unless I'm mistaken that you can already enforce bit 1 of the second
parameter of the userfaultfd syscall to be set with seccomp-bpf, this
would be more a question to the Android
Adding the Android kernel team in the discussion.
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:51 PM Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 03:48:04PM -0400, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > The sysctl /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled is already there
>
> Oops I picked the wrong unprivileged_*
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 03:48:04PM -0400, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> The sysctl /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled is already there
Oops I picked the wrong unprivileged_* :) of course I meant:
/proc/sys/vm/unprivileged_userfaultfd
Hello Kees,
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:03:39AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Err, did I miss a separate 6-patch series? I can't find anything on lore.
Daniel included the link of the previous series I referred to is the
cover letter 0/2:
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:59:38AM -0400, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:54:03PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:52:34PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:26:32PM -0700, Daniel Colascione
Hello everyone,
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:54:03PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:52:34PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:26:32PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > > This sysctl can be set to either zero or one. When zero (the
Hello Jonathan and everyone,
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 01:15:03PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 15:38:16 -0400
> Peter Xu wrote:
>
> > If this is going to be added... I am thinking whether it should be easier to
> > add another value for unprivileged_userfaultfd, rather than
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:52:34PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:26:32PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > This sysctl can be set to either zero or one. When zero (the default)
> > the system lets all users call userfaultfd with or without
> > UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY,
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:26:32PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> This sysctl can be set to either zero or one. When zero (the default)
> the system lets all users call userfaultfd with or without
> UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY, modulo other access controls. When
>
On Wed, 6 May 2020 15:38:16 -0400
Peter Xu wrote:
> If this is going to be added... I am thinking whether it should be easier to
> add another value for unprivileged_userfaultfd, rather than a new sysctl.
> E.g.:
>
> "0": unprivileged userfaultfd forbidden
> "1": unprivileged userfaultfd
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:26:32PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> +unprivileged_userfaultfd_user_mode_only
> +
> +
> +This flag controls whether unprivileged users can use the userfaultfd
> +system calls to handle page faults in kernel mode. If set to
21 matches
Mail list logo
