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:   Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:44:38 +0000
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/madvise: allow process_madvise operations on
 entire memory range
Message-ID: <20201222134438.GA7170@infradead.org>
References: <20201124053943.1684874-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20201124053943.1684874-2-surenb@google.com>
 <20201125231322.GF1484898@google.com>
 <CAG48ez0UKYCdgyW91SmOcT52vbLFz9RjLpaucWpj6bTrgQCwnA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez0UKYCdgyW91SmOcT52vbLFz9RjLpaucWpj6bTrgQCwnA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 09:27:46PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > Can we just use one element in iovec to indicate entire address rather
> > than using up the reserved flags?
> >
> >         struct iovec {
> >                 .iov_base = NULL,
> >                 .iov_len = (~(size_t)0),
> >         };
> 
> In addition to Suren's objections, I think it's also worth considering
> how this looks in terms of compat API. If a compat process does
> process_madvise() on another compat process, it would be specifying
> the maximum 32-bit number, rather than the maximum 64-bit number, so
> you'd need special code to catch that case, which would be ugly.
> 
> And when a compat process uses this API on a non-compat process, it
> semantically gets really weird: The actual address range covered would
> be larger than the address range specified.
> 
> And if we want different access checks for the two flavors in the
> future, gating that different behavior on special values in the iovec
> would feel too magical to me.
> 
> And the length value SIZE_MAX doesn't really make sense anyway because
> the length of the whole address space would be SIZE_MAX+1, which you
> can't express.
> 
> So I'm in favor of a new flag, and strongly against using SIZE_MAX as
> a magic number here.

Yes, using SIZE_MAX is a horrible interface in this case.  I'm not
a huge fan of a flag either.  What is the use case for the madvise
to all of a processes address space anyway?