From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86783C433EF for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 00:21:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D58F06B0071; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 20:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D08F78D0002; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 20:21:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id BF6318D0001; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 20:21:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.26]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04AD6B0071 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 20:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin01.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3E512046C for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 00:21:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79251973206.01.033B207 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3690C0011 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 00:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02CCDB81DA5; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 00:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F488C340E9; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 00:20:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1647476459; bh=RKfQc+84KzmX/BJmxFRxmVAIX2O5Y+i2nELUSWn05Xc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CB80h/PJoP52lXdT+ioOC3RbjLbZuH5/X3gCIWYSAtEokc32G6tPVZh7HxmOzF5/p 90Q5VUZqNY+U294MNnlLWAiXBHlamSMCMbzTURKovQB7rzEpRglfeTL1dPa5QLe0G8 +2vifMOrM+svvufx4RXwtciHXkaIYX+ySv4M3rXc= Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:20:58 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Peter Xu Cc: Nadav Amit , Linux-MM , Mike Rapoport , Andrea Arcangeli , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] userfaultfd: mark uffd_wp regardless of VM_WRITE flag Message-Id: <20220316172058.c559efb14b1324ea52b708f8@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20220217211602.2769-1-namit@vmware.com> <68B04C0D-F8CE-4C95-9032-CF703436DC99@gmail.com> <3E9C755C-7335-4636-8280-D5CB9735A76A@gmail.com> <20220316150553.c7b6f9e0eac620c9ee5963a5@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: E3690C0011 X-Stat-Signature: ec3dksbjo7gjnd8tgnoxhase41cmix3n Authentication-Results: imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b="CB80h/PJ"; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 145.40.68.75 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1647476462-912965 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:11:44 +0800 Peter Xu wrote: > Hi, Andrew, > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 03:05:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > As I understand it, this patch (below) is still good to merge upstream, > > although Peter hasn't acked it (please). > > Thanks for asking. I didn't ack because I saw that it's queued a long time > ago into -mm, and also it's in -next for a long time too (my new uffd-wp > patchset is rebased to this one already). > > I normally assume that means you read and ack that patch already, so if I > didn't see anything obviously wrong I'll just keep silent. Please let me > know if that's not the expected behavior.. Acks and reviews are always welcome. If they come in late, git tree maintainer might not want to update and rebase, but it's still there in the archives for people who click on the Link:. > So here it is.. > > Acked-by: Peter Xu Thanks. > > > > And a whole bunch of followup patches are being thought about, but have > > yet to eventuate. > > Is there a pointer/subject? The messages in this thread. Several followup patches were discussed. > > > > Do we feel that this patch warrants the cc:stable? I'm suspecting > > "no", as it isn't clear that the use-case is really legitimate at this > > time? > > Right. Uffd-wp+mprotect usage is IMHO not a major use case for uffd-wp per > my knowledge. At least I didn't even expect both work together, not until > Nadav started working on some of the problems.. > > Said that, for this specific case it should be literally only changing the > behavior of anonymous UFFD-WP && !WRITE case but nothing else (please > correct me otherwise..), then IMHO it's pretty safe to copy stable too > especially for the cleanly applicable branches. OK, thanks.