linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Introduce vm_uffd

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: <aGbCbW7hUf3a2do2@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 20:48:29 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: Nikita Kalyazin <kalyazin@...zon.com>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
	"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
	Ujwal Kundur <ujwal.kundur@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Introduce vm_uffd_ops API

On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 03:46:57PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 08:39:32PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > The main target of this change is the implementation of UFFD for
> > > KVM/guest_memfd (examples: [1], [2]) to avoid bringing KVM-specific code
> > > into the mm codebase.  We usually mean KVM by the "drivers" in this context,
> > > and it is already somewhat "knowledgeable" of the mm.  I don't think there
> > > are existing use cases for other drivers to implement this at the moment.
> > > 
> > > Although I can't see new exports in this series, there is now a way to limit
> > > exports to particular modules [3].  Would it help if we only do it for KVM
> > > initially (if/when actually needed)?
> > 
> > There were talks about pulling out guest_memfd core into mm, but I don't
> > remember patches about it. If parts of guest_memfd were already in mm/ that
> > would make easier to export uffd ops to it.
> 
> Do we have a link to such discussion?  I'm also curious whether that idea
> was acknowledged by KVM maintainers.

AFAIR it was discussed at one of David's guest_memfd calls
 
> Having an abstraction layer for userfaultfd memtypes within mm always makes
> some sense on its own to me, so as to remove separate random checks over
> either shmem or hugetlb.  E.g. after the series applied, we can drop the
> shmem header in userfaultfd code, which should also be a step forward.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> >  
> > > [1]
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/114133f5-0282-463d-9d65-3143aa658806@amazon.com/
> > > [2]
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/7666ee96-6f09-4dc1-8cb2-002a2d2a29cf@amazon.com/
> > > [3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/masahiroy/linux-kbuild.git/commit/?h=kbuild&id=707f853d7fa3ce323a6875487890c213e34d81a0
> 
> -- 
> Peter Xu
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.