From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D61C433E6 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:48:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA3123130 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:48:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3EA3123130 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 64EA38D001B; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:48:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 5D6578D0016; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:48:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4C55C8D001B; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:48:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0227.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A898D0016 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:48:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11641F1A for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:48:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77621653830.17.coast73_080ac1427461 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3AD7180D0198 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:48:55 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: coast73_080ac1427461 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5212 Received: from mail-wm1-f44.google.com (mail-wm1-f44.google.com [209.85.128.44]) by imf27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:48:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f44.google.com with SMTP id c133so2530103wme.4 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:48:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gZ3Mpnz+y+y40eMwZF/PF9p0ykrXNof+TnqSLHPYMc4=; b=fJurTTnF+Va0FHUdyTWNlS1cGpvh5djyhWHIz8cfeXiEfOyaHauqRQAM7CWWF/HB4r XIFtvR6qpYy5MgmX/TledRqo+t3vH2fcKr7e38xsmzAyKFWgAU8vhI2ZUIFIAYsEkZ8p a1YloLSV7hKc5+Gwt6KP7k500IbltONvgsDcSeGi9zSpQg8zA7YgsqoHX5zOYwp5BF/e iW/jP7UOFR0ATiu/JRaMsx7mEMPFpD1OoYVYpfMH/SAtbBGfvYXc6oIG88gZL0BbXR1o FAp5U+WxGka2LA/evqmWwrzWueuV0cQwOyeE9XZRiQIJnFQm1w0/OvkqpZyWL+tQoCmU sZBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gZ3Mpnz+y+y40eMwZF/PF9p0ykrXNof+TnqSLHPYMc4=; b=WroxCZ0cN7GVr6x8MnQJPOVHZLyvlnWAhhDo8pC//K4fb4ldIzlq69Ouno9s9zCcUO qMwFXsiD6P2BZipZJ8qSFi9UD8EyIWhE+/h1G0ARwRsjmTXxsALtG1D41hPlLMcFFeVs qvD0qq2k5SHxhUi7nmQSb05fh5R7/uTVDGgqxldN2dn2mHdH+QVym9guSRKjwDcRMiNu tnciHpYjPAlZ9B2tAzbOPhi+BVGYsX/yzCQboSYvFekiAerfK0vZSJFTyv9zHnnmc+x5 S8LGP8iVUjLgzexlHkTAADlDfL1VpyNPZhV5HzFl7eehpjaOeAghl0CcTZtcW/GLqyL1 rRFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530faBD9zhwG6RfoHbCUikOU/zTLEWJHbboUKt6UgFsY16n57v40 78M2Ga0jFcRsPzEoB72XJRzOb/SWtnp4w4fNTg7LGw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8xdo+vZEMkO7jQEED2nsivqCj2PRiduHKYZoEitQJoXN17y7RtUWzBp4kXUmTBuo5w4edqoIkhNfbujhKVnY= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4e0a:: with SMTP id g10mr22732565wmh.88.1608659333913; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:48:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201124053943.1684874-1-surenb@google.com> <20201124053943.1684874-2-surenb@google.com> <20201125231322.GF1484898@google.com> <20201222134438.GA7170@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20201222134438.GA7170@infradead.org> From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:48:43 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/madvise: allow process_madvise operations on entire memory range To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jann Horn , Minchan Kim , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Michal Hocko , David Rientjes , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Rik van Riel , Christian Brauner , Oleg Nesterov , Tim Murray , Linux API , Linux-MM , kernel list , kernel-team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:44 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 09:27:46PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote: > > > Can we just use one element in iovec to indicate entire address rather > > > than using up the reserved flags? > > > > > > struct iovec { > > > .iov_base = NULL, > > > .iov_len = (~(size_t)0), > > > }; > > > > In addition to Suren's objections, I think it's also worth considering > > how this looks in terms of compat API. If a compat process does > > process_madvise() on another compat process, it would be specifying > > the maximum 32-bit number, rather than the maximum 64-bit number, so > > you'd need special code to catch that case, which would be ugly. > > > > And when a compat process uses this API on a non-compat process, it > > semantically gets really weird: The actual address range covered would > > be larger than the address range specified. > > > > And if we want different access checks for the two flavors in the > > future, gating that different behavior on special values in the iovec > > would feel too magical to me. > > > > And the length value SIZE_MAX doesn't really make sense anyway because > > the length of the whole address space would be SIZE_MAX+1, which you > > can't express. > > > > So I'm in favor of a new flag, and strongly against using SIZE_MAX as > > a magic number here. > > Yes, using SIZE_MAX is a horrible interface in this case. I'm not > a huge fan of a flag either. What is the use case for the madvise > to all of a processes address space anyway? Thanks for the feedback! The use case is userspace memory reaping similar to oom-reaper. Detailed justification is here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20201124053943.1684874-1-surenb@google.com