From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-qt1-f199.google.com (mail-qt1-f199.google.com [209.85.160.199])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7812B8E0018
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:09:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: by mail-qt1-f199.google.com with SMTP id u32so12747329qte.1
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com. [209.132.183.28])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x31si1846608qvc.205.2018.12.10.12.09.29
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:09:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:09:25 -0500
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] userfaultfd: clear flag if remap event not enabled
Message-ID: <20181210200925.GA14751@redhat.com>
References: <20181210065121.14984-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20181210175115.GB6380@rapoport-lnx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181210175115.GB6380@rapoport-lnx>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>, Pravin Shedge <pravin.shedge4linux@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org

Hello,

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 07:51:16PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 02:51:21PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > When the process being tracked do mremap() without
> > UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMAP on the corresponding tracking uffd file
> > handle, we should not generate the remap event, and at the same
> > time we should clear all the uffd flags on the new VMA.  Without
> > this patch, we can still have the VM_UFFD_MISSING|VM_UFFD_WP
> > flags on the new VMA even the fault handling process does not
> > even know the existance of the VMA.
> > 
> > CC: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > CC: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > CC: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>
> > CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> > CC: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>
> > CC: Pravin Shedge <pravin.shedge4linux@gmail.com>
> > CC: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/userfaultfd.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > index cd58939dc977..798ae8a438ff 100644
> > --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > @@ -740,6 +740,9 @@ void mremap_userfaultfd_prep(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >  		vm_ctx->ctx = ctx;
> >  		userfaultfd_ctx_get(ctx);
> >  		WRITE_ONCE(ctx->mmap_changing, true);
> > +	} else if (ctx) {
> > +		vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx = NULL_VM_UFFD_CTX;
> > +		vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_UFFD_WP | VM_UFFD_MISSING);

Great catch Peter!

> 
> My preference would be 
> 
> 	if (!ctx)
> 		return;
> 	
> 	if (ctx->features & UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMAP) {
> 		...
> 	} else {
> 		...
> 	}
> 
> but I don't feel strongly about it.

Yes, it'd look nicer to run a single "ctx not null" check.

> 
> I'd appreciate a comment in the code and with it 
> 
> Acked-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> 

Reviewed-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>