[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220125213649.dlmtd6mj6malcbo6@revolver>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 21:37:06 +0000
From: Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
CC: "maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org" <maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken.cr@...il.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 49/66] bpf: Remove VMA linked list
* Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> [220119 12:05]:
> On 12/1/21 15:30, Liam Howlett wrote:
> > From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
> >
> > Use vma_next() and remove reference to the start of the linked list
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/task_iter.c | 21 ++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
> > index b48750bfba5a..2d964743f1e6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
> > @@ -299,8 +299,8 @@ struct bpf_iter_seq_task_vma_info {
> > };
> >
> > enum bpf_task_vma_iter_find_op {
> > - task_vma_iter_first_vma, /* use mm->mmap */
> > - task_vma_iter_next_vma, /* use curr_vma->vm_next */
> > + task_vma_iter_first_vma, /* use find_vma() with addr 0 */
> > + task_vma_iter_next_vma, /* use vma_next() with curr_vma */
> > task_vma_iter_find_vma, /* use find_vma() to find next vma */
> > };
> >
> > @@ -400,24 +400,11 @@ task_vma_seq_get_next(struct bpf_iter_seq_task_vma_info *info)
> >
> > switch (op) {
> > case task_vma_iter_first_vma:
> > - curr_vma = curr_task->mm->mmap;
> > + curr_vma = find_vma(curr_task->mm, 0);
> > break;
> > case task_vma_iter_next_vma:
> > - curr_vma = curr_vma->vm_next;
> > - break;
> > case task_vma_iter_find_vma:
> > - /* We dropped mmap_lock so it is necessary to use find_vma
> > - * to find the next vma. This is similar to the mechanism
> > - * in show_smaps_rollup().
> > - */
> > - curr_vma = find_vma(curr_task->mm, info->prev_vm_end - 1);
> > - /* case 1) and 4.2) above just use curr_vma */
> > -
> > - /* check for case 2) or case 4.1) above */
> > - if (curr_vma &&
> > - curr_vma->vm_start == info->prev_vm_start &&
> > - curr_vma->vm_end == info->prev_vm_end)
> > - curr_vma = curr_vma->vm_next;
> > + curr_vma = find_vma(curr_task->mm, curr_vma->vm_end);
>
> Are you sure curr_vma is valid here and we can read its vm_end? Because I
> have no idea, but lots of doubts.
I am not sure. I'm going to drop this patch and take the more
conservative but safer v3 version.
>
> > break;
> > }
> > if (!curr_vma) {
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists