lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR
Date
On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 21:06 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:16:01PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 17:35 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > +static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(unsigned long nr_bits)
> > > +{
> > > + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> > > +
> > > + /* Already enabled? */
> > > + if (mm->context.lam_cr3_mask)
> > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > +
> > > + /* LAM has to be enabled before spawning threads */
> > > + if (get_nr_threads(current) > 1)
> > > + return -EBUSY;
> >
> > Does this work for vfork()? I guess the idea is that locking is not
> > needed below because there is only one thread with the MM, but with
> > vfork() another task could operate on the MM, call fork(), etc. I'm
> > not
> > sure...
>
> I'm not sure I follow. vfork() blocks parent process until child exit
> or
> execve(). I don't see how it is a problem.

Oh yea, you're right.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-10 20:08    [W:0.121 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site