[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YmhW+mOuQUWsByj4@xz-m1.local>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:32:58 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Charan Teja Reddy <charante@...eaurora.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@...linux.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
zhangyi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] userfaultfd: add /dev/userfaultfd for fine
grained access control
Axel,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 02:29:41PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> @@ -65,6 +66,8 @@ struct userfaultfd_ctx {
> unsigned int flags;
> /* features requested from the userspace */
> unsigned int features;
> + /* whether or not to handle kernel faults */
> + bool handle_kernel_faults;
Could you help explain why we need this bool? I failed to figure out
myself on the difference against "!(ctx->flags & UFFD_USER_MODE_ONLY)".
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists