Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] mremap refactor: check src address for vma boundaries first.

["Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>]

* Jeff Xu <jeffxu@chromium.org> [240815 16:23]:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 1:14 PM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> [240815 13:23]:
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 9:50 AM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Jeff Xu <jeffxu@chromium.org> [240814 23:46]:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:55 PM Liam R. Howlett
> > > > > <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The majority of the comments to V2 are mine, you only told us that
> > > > > > splitting a sealed vma is wrong (after I asked you directly to answer)
> > > > > > and then you made a comment about testing of the patch set. Besides the
> > > > > > direct responses to me, your comment was "wait for me to test".
> > > > > >
> > > > > Please share this link for  " Besides the direct responses to me, your
> > > > > comment was "wait for me to test".
> > > > > Or  pop up that email by responding to it, to remind me.  Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > [1].
> > >
> > > That is responding to Andrew, to indicate V2 patch has dependency on
> > > arch_munmap in PPC. And I will review/test the code, I will respond to
> > > Andrew directly.
> > >
> > > PS Your statement above is entirely false, and out of context.
> > >
> > > " You only told us that splitting a sealed vma is wrong (after I asked
> > > you directly to answer) and then you made a comment about testing of
> > > the patch set. Besides the direct responses to me, your comment was
> > > "wait for me to test".
> >
> > [1] has your "wait for me to test" to hold up a patch set, [2] has you
> > answering my direct question to you and making the untested comment to
> > someone else.
> >
> This is the last time that I'm trying to clarify this.
> [1] is my response to Andrew and Pedro.

That doesn't change what you said, or what you are doing.

> [2] is my comments about V2 lack of test , i.e. no selftest change, no
> extra tests added.

But they pass the tests that exist.

Maybe you should take a step back, and look at both solutions.  There is
a competing set of patches that fixes the same problem in a similar way
that was sent out before these patches, and those patches address the
entire problem with the mseal() approach.

Instead of helping make the complete solution work as you think it
should, you are making the design problem worse and can't seem to verify
your patches actually fix the regression.

Liam