linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/12] kernfs: drop shared NUMA mempolicy hooks

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: <ZRIFaPsEHTIxEY/d@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:10:48 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
        Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] kernfs: drop shared NUMA mempolicy hooks

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:22:27AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> It seems strange that kernfs should be an outlier with a set_policy and
> get_policy in its kernfs_vm_ops.  Ah, it dates back to v2.6.30's commit
> 095160aee954 ("sysfs: fix some bin_vm_ops errors"), when I had crashed
> on powerpc's pci_mmap_legacy_page_range() fallback to shmem_zero_setup().
> 
> Well, that was commendably thorough, to give sysfs-bin a set_policy and
> get_policy, just to avoid the way it was coded resulting in EINVAL from
> mmap when CONFIG_NUMA; but somehow feels a bit over-the-top to me now.
> 
> It's easier to say that nobody should expect to manage a shmem object's
> shared NUMA mempolicy via some kernfs backdoor to that object: delete
> that code (and there's no longer an EINVAL from mmap in the NUMA case).
> 
> This then leaves set_policy/get_policy as implemented only by shmem -
> though importantly also by SysV SHM, which has to interface with shmem
> which implements them, and with SHM_HUGETLB which does not.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>

Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>