[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <lpi4uT69AFMwtmWtwW_qJAmYm_r0jRikL11G_zI4X7wq--6Jtpiej8kGn8gePfv0Dtn4VmzsOqT2Q5-L3ca2niDi0nlC0nVYphbFBnNJnw0=@emersion.fr>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 09:29:43 +0000
From: Simon Ser <contact@...rsion.fr>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: Sealed memfd & no-fault mmap
On Tuesday, April 27th, 2021 at 6:51 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Hmm. It doesn't look too hard to do. The biggest problem is actually
> that we've run out of flags in the vma (on 32-bit architectures), but
> you could try this UNTESTED patch that just does the MAP_NOFAULT thing
> unconditionally.
Oh, thanks for the patch! Will test.
> Side note: this will only ever work for non-shared mappings. That's
> fundamental. We won't add an anonymous page to a shared mapping, and
> do_anonymous_page() does verify that. So a MAP_SHARED mappign will
> still return SIGBUS even with this patch (although it's not obvious
> from the patch - the VM_FAULT_SIGBUS will just be re-created by
> do_anonymous_page()).
>
> So if you want a _shared_ mapping to honor __MAP_NOFAULT and insert
> random anonymous pages into it, I think the answer is "no, that's not
> going to be viable".
>
> So _if_ this works for you, and if it's ok that only MAP_PRIVATE can
> have __MAP_NOFAULT, and if Kirill/Peter/Will don't say "Oh, Linus,
> you're completely off your rocker and clearly need to be taking your
> meds", something like this - if we figure out the conditional bit -
> might be doable.
Hm, that's unfortunate. For the use-case of a Wayland compositor this
doesn't seem like a complete show-stopper: in 90% of cases the compositor
only needs a read-only mapping. Wayland clients submit buffers they're
rendered pixels to, compositors only need to read them. So the compositor
could map with MAP_PRIVATE and still get up-to-date pages from a client
process I think.
The remaining 10% is when the compositor needs a writable mapping for
things like screen capture. It doesn't seem like a SIGBUS handler can
be avoided in this case then… Oh well.
> That's a fair number of "ifs".
>
> Ok, back to the merge window for me, I'll be throwing away this crazy
> untested patch immediately after hitting "send". This is very much a
> "throw the idea over to other people" patch, in other words.
Got it. I'll take over the patch if this is a good way forward.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists