linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations

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: <20240213192744.5fqwrlqz5bbvqtf5@revolver>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 14:27:44 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, aarcange@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com,
        david@...hat.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, bgeffon@...gle.com,
        willy@...radead.org, jannh@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
        ngeoffray@...gle.com, timmurray@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd
 operations

* Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> [240213 14:18]:
..

> > > We could use something like uffd_prepare(), uffd_complete() but I
> > > thought of those names rather late in the cycle, but I've already caused
> > > many iterations of this patch set and that clean up didn't seem as vital
> > > as simplicity and clarity of the locking code.
> 
> I anyway have to send another version to fix the error handling that
> you reported earlier. I can take care of this in that version.
> 
> mfill_atomic...() functions (annoyingly) have to sometimes unlock and
> relock. Using prepare/complete in that context seems incompatible.
> 
> >
> > Maybe lock_vma_for_uffd()/unlock_vma_for_uffd()? Whatever name is
> > better I'm fine with it but all these #ifdef's sprinkled around don't
> > contribute to the readability.
> 
> I'll wait for an agreement on this because I too don't like using so
> many ifdef's either.
> 
> Since these functions are supposed to have prototype depending on
> mfill/move, how about the following names:
> 
> uffd_lock_mfill_vma()/uffd_unlock_mfill_vma()
> uffd_lock_move_vmas()/uffd_unlock_move_vmas()
> 
> Of course, I'm open to other suggestions as well.
> 

I'm happy with those if you remove the vma/vmas from the name.