From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: introduce MAP_VALIDATE, a mechanism for for safely defining new mmap flags
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:31:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4g3J10brmUAw8UV4cOP+Yn6wHD2N_OHe1YdaczUZZmN0g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzo4oV87tVjEzx+cHVxfihm=31+fWtsdWow3AmfsdzJJw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> This patch strikes me as insane.
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>> switch (flags & MAP_TYPE) {
>> + case (MAP_SHARED|MAP_VALIDATE):
>> + /* TODO: new map flags */
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> case MAP_SHARED:
>> if ((prot&PROT_WRITE) && !(file->f_mode&FMODE_WRITE))
>> return -EACCES;
>
> So you "add" support for MAP_SHARED|MAP_VALIDATE, but then error out on it.
>
> And you don't add support for MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_VALIDATE at all, so that
> errors out too.
>
> Which makes me think that you actually only want MAP:_VALIDATE support
> for shared mappings.
>
> Which in turn means that all your blathering about how this cannot
> work on HP-UX is just complete garbage, because you might as well just
> realize that MAP_TYPE isn't a mask of _bitmasks_, it's a mask of
> values.
>
> So just make MAP_VALIDATE be 0x3. Which works for everybody. Make it
> mean the same as MAP_SHARED with flag validation. End of story.
>
> None of these stupid games that are complete and utter garbage, and
> make people think that the MAP_TYPE bits are somehow a bitmask. They
> aren't. The bitmasks are all the *other* bits that aren't in
> MAP_TYTPE.
>
> Yes, yes, I see why you *think* you want a bitmap. You think you want
> a bitmap because you want to make MAP_VALIDATE be part of MAP_SYNC
> etc, so that people can do
>
> ret = mmap(NULL, size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED |
> MAP_SYNC, fd, 0);
>
> and "know" that MAP_SYNC actually takes.
>
> And I'm saying that whole wish is bogus. You're fundamentally
> depending on special semantics, just make it explicit. It's already
> not portable, so don't try to make it so.
>
> Rename that MAP_VALIDATE as MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE, make it have a valud
> of 0x3, and make people do
>
> ret = mmap(NULL, size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE
> | MAP_SYNC, fd, 0);
Yeah, we originally had MAP_VALIDATE defined as
(MAP_SHARED|MAP_PRIVATE), but Kirill was concerned that would make
something like MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_SYNC silently provide MAP_SHARED
semantics. MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE solves that problem.
> and then the kernel side is easier too (none of that random garbage
> playing games with looking at the "MAP_VALIDATE bit", but just another
> case statement in that map type thing.
>
> Boom. Done.
Looks good to me.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-31 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-30 23:08 [PATCH 0/2] MAP_VALIDATE and mmap flags validation Dan Williams
2017-08-30 23:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] vfs: add flags parameter to ->mmap() in 'struct file_operations' Dan Williams
2017-08-31 10:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-01 0:54 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-30 23:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: introduce MAP_VALIDATE, a mechanism for for safely defining new mmap flags Dan Williams
2017-08-31 10:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-01 1:01 ` Dan Williams
2017-09-01 1:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-01 1:40 ` Dan Williams
2017-09-01 7:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-08-31 16:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-31 21:31 ` Dan Williams [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAPcyv4g3J10brmUAw8UV4cOP+Yn6wHD2N_OHe1YdaczUZZmN0g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox