Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Introduce vm_uffd_ops API

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 10:16:57AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> You described ->fault() as "a hole in our boat"?  I'm astonished and do not
> know what to say on this.
>
> There was a great comment saying one may want to make Linux an unikernel.
> I thought it was a good one, but only when it was a joke. Is it not?
>
> >
> > My thoughts were around an idea that we only really need to do a limited
> > number of operations on that pointer you are returning.  Those
> > operations may share code, and could be internal to mm.  I don't see
> > this as (a), (b), or (c), but maybe an addition to (b)?  Maybe we need
> > more ops to cover the uses?
>
> That's exactly what this proposal is about, isn't it?  Userfaultfd minor
> fault shares almost all the code except the one hook fetching a folio from
> a page cache from the memory type.
>
> "could be internal to mm" is (c) at least.  No one can do what you
> mentioned without moving guest-memfd into mm/ first.
>
> Nikita and I drafted these changes, so likely we may likely have better
> idea what is happening.
>
> Would you perhaps implement your idea, if that's better?  Either you're
> right, we're happy to use it.  Or you found what you're missing.
>
> It's not required, but now I think it might be a good idea if you are so
> strongly pushing back this userfaultfd feature.  I hope it's fair we
> request for a better solution from you when you rejected almost every
> solution.

Peter -

I've been staying out of this discussion as I'm about to go to Kernel
Recipes and then off on a (well-needed!) holiday, and I simply lack the
bandwidth right now.

But I think we should all calm down a little here :)

Liam and I (more so Liam recently for above reasons) have pushed back
because we have both personally experienced the consequences of giving
drivers too much flexibility wrt core mm functionality.

This is the sole reason we have done so.

We are both eager to find a way forward that is constructive and works well
for everybody involved. We WANT this series to land.

So I think perhaps we should take a step back and identify clearly what the
issues are and how we might best address them.

I spoke to Mike off-list who suggested perhaps things aren't quite
egregious as they seem with uffd_get_folio() so perhaps this is a means of
moving forward.

But I think in broad terms - let's identify what the sensible options are,
and then drill down into whichever one we agree is best to move forwards
with.

Again, apologies for not being able to be more involved here,
workload/other engagements dictate that I am unable to be.

Cheers, Lorenzo