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;
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: introduce arg_lock to protect arg_start|end and
 env_start|end in mm_struct
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     adobriyan@gmail.com, willy@infradead.org, mguzik@redhat.com,
        gorcunov@openvz.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1522088439-105930-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20180327062939.GV5652@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-ID: <df28d1cb-0d43-1c40-9c24-c1abf1b9889a@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Sun, 1 Apr 2018 18:58:07 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180327062939.GV5652@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 3/26/18 11:29 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 27-03-18 02:20:39, Yang Shi wrote:
> [...]
> The patch looks reasonable to me. Maybe it would be better to be more
> explicit about the purpose of the patch. As others noticed, this alone
> wouldn't solve the mmap_sem contention issues. I _think_ that if you
> were more explicit about the mmap_sem abuse it would trigger less
> questions.
>
> I have just one more question. Now that you are touching this area,
> would you be willing to remove the following ugliness?
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
>> index f2289de..17bddd2 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sys.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
>> @@ -1959,7 +1959,7 @@ static int prctl_set_mm_map(int opt, const void __user *addr, unsigned long data
>>   			return error;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>> +	down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> Why do we need to hold mmap_sem here and call find_vma, when only
> PR_SET_MM_ENV_END: is consuming it? I guess we can replace it wit the
> new lock and take the mmap_sem only for PR_SET_MM_ENV_END.

Sorry for taking a little bit longer to get back since I was traveling. 
I think all the stuff can be protected by the new arg_lock except 
mm->brk since arg_lock can't prevent from concurrent writing from sys_brk().

We may use arg_lock to protect everything else other than mm->brk. The 
complexity sounds acceptable.

Of course, as Cyrill mentioned, he prefers to deprecating prctl_set_mm 
since C/R is the only user of it. We may wait until he is done?

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Thanks!