Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm/mseal: simplify and rename VMA gap check

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

On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 08:10:11PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 25.07.25 19:43, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > >
> > > Contact is a great way to hide implementation details. Could you
> > > please keep check_mm_seal() in mseal.c and create
> > > range_contains_unmapped() in vma.c. Then you can refactor as needed.
> >
> > Wait what?
>
> do_mseal() calls range_contains_unmapped(), so I don't see the problem.

Thanks.

>
> We could add a comment above the range_contains_unmapped(), call stating
> *why* we do that, which is much more relevant than some check_XXX function.
>
> /*
>  * mseal() is documented to reject ranges that contain unmapped ranges
>  * (VMA holes): we can only seal VMAs, so nothing would stop mmap() etc.
>  * from succeeding on these unmapped ranged later, and we would not
>  * actually be sealing the requested range.
>  */
>
> Something like that.

Actually this is useful, as it explains to me why we disallow gaps (which I
found silly).

Though I'm not sure I still agree with this (under what circumstances
exactly you'd map within an mseal()'d range afterwards and then assume that
mapping is sealed, I don't know).

Anyway that's sort of besides the point.

I'll send a fix-patch to include this.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>

Cheers, Lorenzo