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, 23 Jul 2019 06:42:38 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        christian@brauner.io, davem@davemloft.net, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        elena.reshetova@intel.com, guro@fb.com, hch@infradead.org,
        james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, jglisse@redhat.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, ldv@altlinux.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
        luto@amacapital.net, mhocko@suse.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        namit@vmware.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        wad@chromium.org
Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop
Message-ID: <20190723062842-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <0000000000008dd6bb058e006938@google.com>
 <000000000000964b0d058e1a0483@google.com>
 <20190721044615-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <75c43998-3a1c-676f-99ff-3d04663c3fcc@redhat.com>
 <20190722035657-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <cfcd330d-5f4a-835a-69f7-c342d5d0d52d@redhat.com>
 <20190723010156-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <124be1a2-1c53-8e65-0f06-ee2294710822@redhat.com>
 <20190723032800-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <e2e01a05-63d8-4388-2bcd-b2be3c865486@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e2e01a05-63d8-4388-2bcd-b2be3c865486@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:42:19PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > So how about this: do exactly what you propose but as a 2 patch series:
> > start with the slow safe patch, and add then return uaddr optimizations
> > on top. We can then more easily reason about whether they are safe.
> 
> 
> If you stick, I can do this.

So I definitely don't insist but I'd like us to get back to where
we know existing code is very safe (if not super fast) and
optimizing from there.  Bugs happen but I'd like to see a bisect
giving us "oh it's because of XYZ optimization" and not the
general "it's somewhere within this driver" that we are getting
now.

Maybe the way to do this is to revert for this release cycle
and target the next one. What do you think?

-- 
MST