Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 13:12:56 -0500
From:   Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Don't fault around userfaultfd-registered regions
 on reads
Message-ID: <X8p8KNJXD3aK9TkF@redhat.com>
References: <20201201125927.GB11935@casper.infradead.org>
 <20201201223033.GG3277@xz-x1>
 <X8bZk3jTGU8QyJWc@redhat.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.2012021410260.4989@eggly.anvils>
 <20201202234117.GD108496@xz-x1>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.2012022119010.11674@eggly.anvils>
 <20201203180234.GJ108496@xz-x1>
 <X8lADgHCRqlQi3Xa@redhat.com>
 <20201204023051.GL108496@xz-x1>
 <X8m2qv9h7+e79UjJ@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <X8m2qv9h7+e79UjJ@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.2 (2020-11-20)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:10:18PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> from the pte, one that cannot ever be set in any swp entry today. I
> assume it can't be _PAGE_SWP_UFFD_WP since that already can be set but
> you may want to verify it...

I thought more about the above, and I think the already existing
pte_swp_mkuffd_wp will just be enough without having to reserve an
extra bitflag if we encode it as a non migration entry.

The check:

if (!pte_present && !pte_none && pte_swp_uffd_wp && not_anonymous_vma && !is_migration_entry)

should be enough to disambiguate it. When setting it, it'd be enough
to set the pte to the value _PAGE_SWP_UFFD_WP.

Although if you prefer to check for:

if (!pte_present && !pte_none && swp_type == 1 && swp_offset == 0 && not_anonymous_vma && !is_migration_entry)

that would do as well.

It's up to you, just my preference is to reuse _PAGE_SWP_UFFD_WP since
it has already to exist, there are already all the pte_swp_*uffd*
methods available or uffd-wp cannot work.

Thanks,
Andrea