Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] fs/procfs: use per-VMA RCU-protected locking in PROCMAP_QUERY API

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

* Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> [240606 14:09]:

...

> > > Liam, any objections to this? The whole point of this patch set is to
> > > add a new API, not all the CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK gotchas. My
> > > implementation is structured in a way that should be easily amenable
> > > to CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK changes, but if there are a few more subtle
> > > things that need to be figured for existing text-based
> > > /proc/<pid>/maps anyways, I think it would be best to use mmap_lock
> > > for now for this new API, and then adopt the same final
> > > CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK-aware solution.
> >
> > The reason I was hoping to have the new interface use the per-vma
> > locking from the start is to ensure the guarantees that we provide to
> > the users would not change.  We'd also avoid shifting to yet another
> > mmap_lock users.
> >
> 
> Yep, it's completely understandable. And you see that I changed the
> structure quite a lot to abstract away mmap_lock vs vm_lock details.
> I'm afraid anon_vma_name() is quite an obstacle, unfortunately, and
> seems like it should be addressed first, but I'm just not qualified
> enough to do this.
> 
> > I also didn't think it would complicate your series too much, so I
> > understand why you want to revert to the old locking semantics.  I'm
> > fine with you continuing with the series on the old lock.  Thanks for
> > trying to make this work.
> >
> 
> I'm happy to keep the existing structure of the code, and
> (intentionally) all the CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK logic is in separate
> patches, so it's easy to do. I'd love to help adopt a per-VMA lock
> once all the pieces are figured out. Hopefully anon_vma_name() is the
> last one remaining :) So please keep me cc'ed on relevant patches.
> 
> As I mentioned, I just don't feel like I would be able to solve the
> anon_vma_name() problem, but of course I wouldn't want to be
> completely blocked by it as well.
> 

Absolutely.  Thanks for trying.  To be clear, I'm fine with you dropping
the per-vma locking from this interface as well.

Thanks,
Liam