linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1156ad46-1952-4892-8092-bfbb8588c3f3@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:03:15 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...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,
        jannh@...gle.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 v3 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_MOVE uABI

On 22.10.23 17:46, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 07:16:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> These are rather the vibes I'm getting from Peter. "Why rename it, could
>> confuse people because the original patches are old", "Why exclude it if it
>> has been included in the original patches". Not the kind of reasoning I can
>> relate to when it comes to upstreaming some patches.
> 
> You can't blame anyone if you misunderstood and biased the question.
> 
> The first question is definitely valid, even until now.  You guys still
> prefer to rename it, which I'm totally fine with.
> 
> The 2nd question is wrong from your interpretation.  That's not my point,
> at least not starting from a few replies already.  What I was asking for is
> why such page movement between mm is dangerous.  I don't think I get solid
> answers even until now.
> 
> Noticing "memcg is missing" is not an argument for "cross-mm is dangerous",
> it's a review comment.  Suren can address that.
> 
> You'll propose a new feature that may tag an mm is not an argument either,
> if it's not merged yet.  We can also address that depending on what it is,
> also on which lands earlier.
> 
> It'll be good to discuss these details even in a single-mm support.  Anyone
> would like to add that can already refer to discussion in this thread.
> 
> I hope I'm clear.
> 

I said everything I had to say, go read what I wrote.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb