linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 kvm/queue 03/16] mm/memfd: Introduce MEMFD

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]

Date:   Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:38:53 +0800
From:   Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Robert Hoo <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        qemu-devel@...gnu.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        luto@...nel.org, john.ji@...el.com, susie.li@...el.com,
        jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 kvm/queue 03/16] mm/memfd: Introduce MEMFD_OPS

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 11:53:15AM +0800, Robert Hoo wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-12-23 at 20:29 +0800, Chao Peng wrote:
> > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> >  
> > +static void notify_fallocate(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t start,
> > pgoff_t end)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMFD_OPS
> > +	struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> > +	const struct memfd_falloc_notifier *notifier;
> > +	void *owner;
> > +	bool ret;
> > +
> > +	if (!info->falloc_notifier)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock(&info->lock);
> > +	notifier = info->falloc_notifier;
> > +	if (!notifier) {
> > +		spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	owner = info->owner;
> > +	ret = notifier->get_owner(owner);
> > +	spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> > +	if (!ret)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	notifier->fallocate(inode, owner, start, end);
> 
> I see notifier->fallocate(), i.e. memfd_fallocate(), discards
> kvm_memfd_fallocate_range()'s return value. Should it be checked?

I think we can ignore it, just like how current mmu_notifier does,
the return value of __kvm_handle_hva_range is discarded in
kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(). Even when KVM side failed,
it's not fatal, it should not block the operation in the primary MMU.

Thanks,
Chao
> 
> > +	notifier->put_owner(owner);
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +