lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm: restrictedmem: Allow userspace to specify mount_path for memfd_restricted
From

"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 12:41:16AM +0000, Ackerley Tng wrote:
>> By default, the backing shmem file for a restrictedmem fd is created
>> on shmem's kernel space mount.

>> With this patch, an optional tmpfs mount can be specified, which will
>> be used as the mountpoint for backing the shmem file associated with a
>> restrictedmem fd.

>> This change is modeled after how sys_open() can create an unnamed
>> temporary file in a given directory with O_TMPFILE.

>> This will help restrictedmem fds inherit the properties of the
>> provided tmpfs mounts, for example, hugepage allocation hints, NUMA
>> binding hints, etc.

>> Signed-off-by: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/syscalls.h | 2 +-
>> include/uapi/linux/restrictedmem.h | 8 ++++
>> mm/restrictedmem.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/restrictedmem.h

>> diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls.h b/include/linux/syscalls.h
>> index f9e9e0c820c5..4b8efe9a8680 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
>> @@ -1056,7 +1056,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_memfd_secret(unsigned int
>> flags);
>> asmlinkage long sys_set_mempolicy_home_node(unsigned long start,
>> unsigned long len,
>> unsigned long home_node,
>> unsigned long flags);
>> -asmlinkage long sys_memfd_restricted(unsigned int flags);
>> +asmlinkage long sys_memfd_restricted(unsigned int flags, const char
>> __user *mount_path);

>> /*
>> * Architecture-specific system calls

> I'm not sure what the right practice now: do we provide string that
> contains mount path or fd that represents the filesystem (returned from
> fsmount(2) or open_tree(2)).

> fd seems more flexible: it allows to specify unbind mounts.

I tried out the suggestion of passing fds to memfd_restricted() instead
of strings.

One benefit I see of using fds is interface uniformity: it feels more
aligned with other syscalls like fsopen(), fsconfig(), and fsmount() in
terms of using and passing around fds.

Other than being able to use a mount without a path attached to the
mount, are there any other benefits of using fds over using the path string?

Should I post the patches that allows specifying a mount using fds?
Should I post them as a separate RFC, or as a new revision to this RFC?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:33    [W:0.069 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site