Hi
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Mike Kravetz <[email protected]> wrote:
> +Cc: Andrew, Michal, David
>
> Are there any other comments on this patch series from Marc-André? Is anything
> else needed to move forward?
>
> I have reviewed the patches in the series. David Herrmann (the original
> memfd_create/file sealing author) has also taken a look at the patches.
>
> One outstanding issue is sorting out the config option dependencies. Although,
> IMO this is not a strict requirement for this series. I have addressed this
> issue in a follow on series:
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Are we good for the next merge window? Is Hugh Dickins the maintainer
with the final word, and doing the pull request? (sorry, I am not very
familiar with kernel development)
thanks!
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently, Mike Kravetz added hugetlbfs support to memfd. However, he
>> didn't add sealing support. One of the reasons to use memfd is to have
>> shared memory sealing when doing IPC or sharing memory with another
>> process with some extra safety. qemu uses shared memory & hugetables
>> with vhost-user (used by dpdk), so it is reasonable to use memfd
>> now instead for convenience and security reasons.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> v3:
>> - do remaining MFD_DEF_SIZE/mfd_def_size substitutions
>> - fix missing unistd.h include in common.c
>> - tweaked a bit commit message prefixes
>> - added reviewed-by tags
>>
>> v2:
>> - add "memfd-hugetlb:" prefix in memfd-test
>> - run fuse test on hugetlb backend memory
>> - rename function memfd_file_get_seals() -> memfd_file_seals_ptr()
>> - update commit messages
>> - added reviewed-by tags
>>
>> RFC->v1:
>> - split rfc patch, after early review feedback
>> - added patch for memfd-test changes
>> - fix build with hugetlbfs disabled
>> - small code and commit messages improvements
>>
>> Marc-André Lureau (9):
>> shmem: unexport shmem_add_seals()/shmem_get_seals()
>> shmem: rename functions that are memfd-related
>> hugetlb: expose hugetlbfs_inode_info in header
>> hugetlb: implement memfd sealing
>> shmem: add sealing support to hugetlb-backed memfd
>> memfd-test: test hugetlbfs sealing
>> memfd-test: add 'memfd-hugetlb:' prefix when testing hugetlbfs
>> memfd-test: move common code to a shared unit
>> memfd-test: run fuse test on hugetlb backend memory
>>
>> fs/fcntl.c | 2 +-
>> fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 39 +++--
>> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 11 ++
>> include/linux/shmem_fs.h | 6 +-
>> mm/shmem.c | 59 ++++---
>> tools/testing/selftests/memfd/Makefile | 5 +
>> tools/testing/selftests/memfd/common.c | 46 ++++++
>> tools/testing/selftests/memfd/common.h | 9 ++
>> tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c | 44 +++--
>> tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 212 ++++---------------------
>> tools/testing/selftests/memfd/run_fuse_test.sh | 2 +-
>> tools/testing/selftests/memfd/run_tests.sh | 1 +
>> 12 files changed, 200 insertions(+), 236 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/memfd/common.c
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/memfd/common.h
>>
--
Marc-André Lureau
On Wed 20-12-17 15:15:50, Marc-Andr? Lureau wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Mike Kravetz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > +Cc: Andrew, Michal, David
> >
> > Are there any other comments on this patch series from Marc-Andr?? Is anything
> > else needed to move forward?
> >
> > I have reviewed the patches in the series. David Herrmann (the original
> > memfd_create/file sealing author) has also taken a look at the patches.
> >
> > One outstanding issue is sorting out the config option dependencies. Although,
> > IMO this is not a strict requirement for this series. I have addressed this
> > issue in a follow on series:
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> Are we good for the next merge window? Is Hugh Dickins the maintainer
> with the final word, and doing the pull request? (sorry, I am not very
> familiar with kernel development)
Andrew will pick it up, I assume. I will try to get and review this but
there is way too much going on before holiday.
If Mieke feels sufficiently confident about this then I won't object to
the go ahead.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:10:51 +0100 Michal Hocko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed 20-12-17 15:15:50, Marc-Andr? Lureau wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Mike Kravetz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > +Cc: Andrew, Michal, David
> > >
> > > Are there any other comments on this patch series from Marc-Andr?? Is anything
> > > else needed to move forward?
> > >
> > > I have reviewed the patches in the series. David Herrmann (the original
> > > memfd_create/file sealing author) has also taken a look at the patches.
> > >
> > > One outstanding issue is sorting out the config option dependencies. Although,
> > > IMO this is not a strict requirement for this series. I have addressed this
> > > issue in a follow on series:
> > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> >
> > Are we good for the next merge window? Is Hugh Dickins the maintainer
> > with the final word, and doing the pull request? (sorry, I am not very
> > familiar with kernel development)
>
> Andrew will pick it up, I assume. I will try to get and review this but
> there is way too much going on before holiday.
Yup, things are quiet at present.
I'll suck these up for a bit of testing - please let me know if you'd
prefer them to be held back for a cycle (ie: for 4.17-rc1)
On 12/20/2017 04:26 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:10:51 +0100 Michal Hocko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed 20-12-17 15:15:50, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Mike Kravetz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> +Cc: Andrew, Michal, David
>>>>
>>>> Are there any other comments on this patch series from Marc-André? Is anything
>>>> else needed to move forward?
>>>>
>>>> I have reviewed the patches in the series. David Herrmann (the original
>>>> memfd_create/file sealing author) has also taken a look at the patches.
>>>>
>>>> One outstanding issue is sorting out the config option dependencies. Although,
>>>> IMO this is not a strict requirement for this series. I have addressed this
>>>> issue in a follow on series:
>>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>>
>>> Are we good for the next merge window? Is Hugh Dickins the maintainer
>>> with the final word, and doing the pull request? (sorry, I am not very
>>> familiar with kernel development)
>>
>> Andrew will pick it up, I assume. I will try to get and review this but
>> there is way too much going on before holiday.
>
> Yup, things are quiet at present.
>
> I'll suck these up for a bit of testing - please let me know if you'd
> prefer them to be held back for a cycle (ie: for 4.17-rc1)
Thanks Andrew,
As mentioned above there is one issue related to this series that we may
want to address. It is described in the series at:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
I did not get many comments on this series/issue. If we want to do
something like this, now might be a good time.
--
Mike Kravetz
Hi Mike
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Mike Kravetz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/20/2017 04:26 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:10:51 +0100 Michal Hocko <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed 20-12-17 15:15:50, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Mike Kravetz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> +Cc: Andrew, Michal, David
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any other comments on this patch series from Marc-André? Is anything
>>>>> else needed to move forward?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have reviewed the patches in the series. David Herrmann (the original
>>>>> memfd_create/file sealing author) has also taken a look at the patches.
>>>>>
>>>>> One outstanding issue is sorting out the config option dependencies. Although,
>>>>> IMO this is not a strict requirement for this series. I have addressed this
>>>>> issue in a follow on series:
>>>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>>>
>>>> Are we good for the next merge window? Is Hugh Dickins the maintainer
>>>> with the final word, and doing the pull request? (sorry, I am not very
>>>> familiar with kernel development)
>>>
>>> Andrew will pick it up, I assume. I will try to get and review this but
>>> there is way too much going on before holiday.
>>
>> Yup, things are quiet at present.
>>
>> I'll suck these up for a bit of testing - please let me know if you'd
>> prefer them to be held back for a cycle (ie: for 4.17-rc1)
>
> Thanks Andrew,
>
> As mentioned above there is one issue related to this series that we may
> want to address. It is described in the series at:
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> I did not get many comments on this series/issue. If we want to do
> something like this, now might be a good time.
I am not the best person to say, but I think that series makes a lot
of sense (and looks good to me). However, I don't think we need to
wait for it to get the sealing support added (furthermore, your rfc
series is on top).
Thanks!
--
Marc-André Lureau