linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: perform VMA allocation, freeing, duplication in mm

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: <CAJuCfpG84+795wzWuEi6t18srt436=9ea0dGrYgg-KT8+82Sgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:22:30 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, 
	Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: perform VMA allocation, freeing, duplication in mm

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 2:22 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 24.04.25 23:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > Right now these are performed in kernel/fork.c which is odd and a violation
> > of separation of concerns, as well as preventing us from integrating this
> > and related logic into userland VMA testing going forward, and perhaps more
> > importantly - enabling us to, in a subsequent commit, make VMA
> > allocation/freeing a purely internal mm operation.
> >
> > There is a fly in the ointment - nommu - mmap.c is not compiled if
> > CONFIG_MMU is not set, and there is no sensible place to put these outside
> > of that, so we are put in the position of having to duplication some logic

s/to duplication/to duplicate

> > here.
> >
> > This isn't ideal, but since nommu is a niche use-case, already duplicates a
> > great deal of mmu logic by its nature and we can eliminate code that is not
> > applicable to nommu, it seems a worthwhile trade-off.
> >
> > The intent is to move all this logic to vma.c in a subsequent commit,
> > rendering VMA allocation, freeing and duplication mm-internal-only and
> > userland testable.
>
> I'm pretty sure you tried it, but what's the big blocker to have patch
> #3 first, so we can avoid the temporary move of the code to mmap.c ?

Completely agree with David.
I peeked into 4/4 and it seems you want to keep vma.c completely
CONFIG_MMU-centric. I know we treat NOMMU as an unwanted child but
IMHO it would be much cleaner to move these functions into vma.c from
the beginning and have an #ifdef CONFIG_MMU there like this:

mm/vma.c

/* Functions identical for MMU/NOMMU */
struct vm_area_struct *vm_area_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm) {...}
void __init vma_state_init(void) {...}

#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
static void vm_area_init_from(const struct vm_area_struct *src,
                             struct vm_area_struct *dest) {...}
struct vm_area_struct *vm_area_dup(struct vm_area_struct *orig) {...}
void vm_area_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma) {...}
#else /* CONFIG_MMU */
static void vm_area_init_from(const struct vm_area_struct *src,
                             struct vm_area_struct *dest) {...}
struct vm_area_struct *vm_area_dup(struct vm_area_struct *orig) {...}
void vm_area_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma) {...}
#endif /* CONFIG_MMU */





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