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

[Jeff Xu <jeffxu@chromium.org>]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 11:10 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 25.07.25 19:43, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 10:30:08AM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote:
> >> Hi Lorenzo,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 1:30 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
> >> <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The check_mm_seal() function is doing something general - checking whether
> >>> a range contains only VMAs (or rather that it does NOT contain any
> >>> unmapped regions).
> >>>
> >>> So rename this function to range_contains_unmapped().
> >>>
> >> Thanks for keeping the comments.
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
> >>
> >> In the prior version of this patch, I requested that we keep the
> >> check_mm_seal()  and its comments. And this version keeps the comments
> >> but removes the check_mm_seal() name.
> >
> > I didn't catch that being your request.
> >
> >>
> >> As I said, check_mm_seal() with its comments is a contract for
> >> entry-check for mseal().  My understanding is that you are going to
> >> move range_contains_unmapped() to vma.c. When that happens, mseal()
> >> will lose this entry-check contract.
> >
> > This is just bizarre.
> >
> > Code doesn't stop working if you put it in another function.
> >
> > And you're now reviewing me for stuff I haven't done? :P
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> 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.
>   */
>
Adding a reason explaining the reason is way more helpful than just
stating what it's doing. Thanks!

a nit: I would use:

> /*
>   * mseal() is documented to reject ranges that contain unmapped ranges
>   * (VMA holes in the middle or both ends): 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.
>   */

To make it clear to the reader, because VMA holes might lead people to
think they're only in the middle.

Thanks and regards,
-Jeff





> Something like that.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>