Re: [PATCH] debugfs: Add proxy function for the mmap file operation

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 01:11:45PM +0200, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 07:31:36PM +0200, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> >>Nicolai Stange <nicstange@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>> However, if you wish to have some mmapable debugfs file which *can* go
> >>> away, introducing mmap support in the debugfs full proxy is perfectly
> >>> valid. But please see below.
> >>
> >>Assuming that you've got such a use case, please consider resending your
> >>patch along with the Cocci script below (and the Coccinelle team CC'ed,
> >>of course). If OTOH your mmapable debugfs files are never removed, just
> >>drop this message and use debugfs_create_file_unsafe() instead.
> >
> > So we do have an implementation using this, but it's likely we will
> > keep it out-of-tree (it's a stop-gap until we can get a non-debugfs
> > implementation of the functionality into mainline).
> >
> > Do you think it's worth merging this (and your cocci script) anyway to
> > save someone else doing the same thing later?
> 
> I personally think that having ->mmap() support in debugfs would be a
> good thing to have in general and I expect there to be some further
> demand in the future.

Ugh, mmap in debugfs, that's funny.  And sad...

> But I also think that it is a little bit fragile in the current state:
> how many people actually run the Cocci scripts on their changes? AFAICT,
> even the kbuild test robot doesn't do this. And after all, the Cocci
> script I provided could very well miss some obfuscated writes to
> vma->vm_ops: if they aren't done from ->mmap() themselves, but from some
> helper function invoked therein, for example.
> 
> I would personally prefer a hand coded full_proxy_mmap() which WARN()s
> if the proxied ->mmap() changes vma->vm_ops:
> - this would add an extra safety net
> - ->mmap() for debugfs files isn't performance critical
> - and lastly, we're already doing something similar to this in
>   open_proxy_open().

Yes, that would be the best thing to do here.

thanks,

greg k-h