[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFLXRtCDfoNzQym6@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:12:06 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
Cc: seanjc@...gle.com, david@...hat.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, brauner@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
ackerleytng@...gle.com, paul@...l-moore.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
serge@...lyn.com, pvorel@...e.cz, bfoster@...hat.com,
tabba@...gle.com, vannapurve@...gle.com, chao.gao@...el.com,
bharata@....com, nikunj@....com, michael.day@....com,
yan.y.zhao@...el.com, Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, michael.roth@....com, aik@....com,
jgg@...dia.com, kalyazin@...zon.com, peterx@...hat.com,
jack@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org,
cgzones@...glemail.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
roypat@...zon.co.uk, ziy@...dia.com, matthew.brost@...el.com,
joshua.hahnjy@...il.com, rakie.kim@...com, byungchul@...com,
kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com,
apopple@...dia.com, chao.p.peng@...el.com, amit@...radead.org,
ddutile@...hat.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, ashish.kalra@....com,
gshan@...hat.com, jgowans@...zon.com, pankaj.gupta@....com,
papaluri@....com, yuzhao@...gle.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
quic_eberman@...cinc.com, aneeshkumar.kizhakeveetil@....com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 4/7] mm/mempolicy: Export memory policy symbols
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:29:32AM +0000, Shivank Garg wrote:
> KVM guest_memfd wants to implement support for NUMA policies just like
> shmem already does using the shared policy infrastructure. As
> guest_memfd currently resides in KVM module code, we have to export the
> relevant symbols.
>
> In the future, guest_memfd might be moved to core-mm, at which point the
> symbols no longer would have to be exported. When/if that happens is
> still unclear.
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
> ---
> mm/mempolicy.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 3b1dfd08338b..d98243cdf090 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -354,6 +354,7 @@ struct mempolicy *get_task_policy(struct task_struct *p)
>
> return &default_policy;
> }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_task_policy);
>
> static const struct mempolicy_operations {
> int (*create)(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes);
> @@ -487,6 +488,7 @@ void __mpol_put(struct mempolicy *pol)
> return;
> kmem_cache_free(policy_cache, pol);
> }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__mpol_put);
>
I'm concerned that get_task_policy doesn't actually increment the policy
refcount - and mpol_cond_put only decrements the refcount for shared
policies (vma policies) - while __mpol_put decrements it unconditionally.
If you look at how get_task_policy is used internally to mempolicy,
you'll find that it either completes the operation in the context of the
task lock (allocation time) or it calls mpol_get afterwards.
Exporting this as-is creates a triping hazard, if only because get/put
naming implies reference counting.
~Gregory
Powered by blists - more mailing lists