linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/25] mm: userfault: return VM_FAULT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190626074330.GB24379@xz-x1>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 15:43:30 +0800
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Maya Gokhale <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Martin Cracauer <cracauer@...s.org>,
        Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Marty McFadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/25] mm: userfault: return VM_FAULT_RETRY on signals

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 09:59:58AM +0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:31 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes that sounds reasonable to me, and that matches perfectly with
> > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and TASK_KILLABLE.  The only thing that I am a bit
> > uncertain is whether we should define FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE as a
> > new bit or make it simply a combination of:
> >
> >   FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE | FAULT_FLAG_USER
> 
> It needs to be a new bit, I think.
> 
> Some things could potentially care about the difference between "can I
> abort this thing because the task will *die* and never see the end
> result" and "can I abort this thing because it will be retried".
> 
> For a regular page fault, maybe FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTBLE will always be
> set for the same things that set FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE when it happens
> from user mode, but at least conceptually I think they are different,
> and it could make a difference for things like get_user_pages() or
> similar.
> 
> Also, I actually don't think we should ever expose FAULT_FLAG_USER to
> any fault handlers anyway. It has a very specific meaning for memory
> cgroup handling, and no other fault handler should likely ever care
> about "was this a user fault". So I'd actually prefer for people to
> ignore and forget that hacky flag entirely, rather than give it subtle
> semantic meaning together with KILLABLE.

OK.

> 
> [ Side note: this is the point where I may soon lose internet access,
> so I'll probably not be able to participate in the discussion any more
> for a while ]

Appreciate for these suggestions.  I'll prepare something with that
new bit and see whether that could be accepted.  I'll also try to
split those out of the bigger series.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu