linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHGLUYKHik_qCc2Uwnn6Yk6oMn+HA1t2i1995b1NREFYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:02:00 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com,
        rppt@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
        zhangpeng362@...wei.com, bgeffon@...gle.com,
        kaleshsingh@...gle.com, ngeoffray@...gle.com, jdduke@...gle.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_REMAP uABI

On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 5:30 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 04.10.23 01:39, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 11:26 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:21 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 11:08:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>> Sorry I have to ask: has this ever been discussed on the list? I don't see
> >>>> any pointers. If not, then probably the number of people that know about the
> >>>> history can be counted with my two hands and that shouldn't be the basis for
> >>>> making decisions.
> >>>
> >>> For example:
> >>>
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1425575884-2574-21-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com/
>
> Sorry, I had to process a family NMI the last couple of days.
>
> >>
> >> There was another submission in 2019:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1547251023.git.blake.caldwell@colorado.edu/
>
> It would be good to link them in the cover letter and shortly explain
> why that wasn't merged back then (if there was any reason).

Will do. I could not find the reason but will check again.

>
> >>
> >> Though both times it did not generate much discussion. I don't have a
> >> strong preference though MOVE sounds more generic to me TBH (it
> >> specifies the operation rather than REMAP which hints on how that
> >> operation is carried out). But again, I'm fine either way.
> >
> > That's a good point. IMHO, if in future we want to have the fallback
> > implemented, then MOVE would be a more appropriate name than REMAP.
> >
> >> As for UFFDIO_MOVE_ZERO_COPY_ONLY vs UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_COPY, I
> >> find it weird that the default (the most efficient/desired) mode of
> >> operation needs a flag. I would prefer to have no flag initially and
> >> add UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_COPY or whatever name is more appropriate
> >> when/if we ever need it. Makes sense?
> >
> > Agreed!
>
> I agree. One could have UFFDIO_MOVE that is best-effort and documented
> like that, and a to-be-named future extension that always works but
> might be more expensive.
>
>
> Ideally we'd have an interface that does not expose and/or rely on such
> low-level information and simply always works, but getting that would
> mean that we'd have to implement the fallback immediately ... so I guess
> we'll have to expose a best-effort interface first.

Sounds good. I'll try to post the next version early next week. Thanks
for the input folks!

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>