Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:29:44 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>, adobriyan@gmail.com,
        mhocko@kernel.org, mguzik@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: introduce arg_lock to protect arg_start|end and
 env_start|end in mm_struct
Message-ID: <20180326212944.GF2236@uranus>
References: <1522088439-105930-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20180326183725.GB27373@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20180326192132.GE2236@uranus>
 <0bfa8943-a2fe-b0ab-99a2-347094a2bcec@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0bfa8943-a2fe-b0ab-99a2-347094a2bcec@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 06:10:09AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/03/27 4:21, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > That said I think using read-lock here would be a bug.
> 
> If I understand correctly, the caller can't set both fields atomically, for
> prctl() does not receive both fields at one call.
> 
>   prctl(PR_SET_MM, PR_SET_MM_ARG_START xor PR_SET_MM_ARG_END xor PR_SET_MM_ENV_START xor PR_SET_MM_ENV_END, new value, 0, 0);
> 

True, but the key moment is that two/three/four system calls can
run simultaneously. And while previously they are ordered by "write",
with read lock they are completely unordered and this is really
worries me. To be fair I would prefer to drop this old per-field
interface completely. This per-field interface was rather an ugly
solution from my side.

> Then, I wonder whether reading arg_start|end and env_start|end atomically makes
> sense. Just retry reading if arg_start > env_end or env_start > env_end is fine?

Tetsuo, let me re-read this code tomorrow, maybe I miss something obvious.