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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <vs1Us2sm4qmfvLOqNat0-r16GyfmWzqUzQ4KHbXJwEcjhzeoQ4sBTxx7QXDG9B6zk5AeT7FsNb3CSr94LaKy6Novh1fbbw8D_BBxYsbPLms=@emersion.fr>
 <CAHk-=wgmGv2EGscKSi8SrQWtEVpEQyk-ZN1Xj4EoAB87Dmx1gA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210429154807.hptls4vnmq2svuea@box> <20210429183836.GF8339@xz-x1> <lpi4uT69AFMwtmWtwW_qJAmYm_r0jRikL11G_zI4X7wq--6Jtpiej8kGn8gePfv0Dtn4VmzsOqT2Q5-L3ca2niDi0nlC0nVYphbFBnNJnw0=@emersion.fr>
In-Reply-To: <lpi4uT69AFMwtmWtwW_qJAmYm_r0jRikL11G_zI4X7wq--6Jtpiej8kGn8gePfv0Dtn4VmzsOqT2Q5-L3ca2niDi0nlC0nVYphbFBnNJnw0=@emersion.fr>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 09:08:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiAs7Ky9gmWAeqk5t7Nkueip13XPGtUcmMiZjwf-sX3sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sealed memfd & no-fault mmap
To:     Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com>,
        "tytso@mit.edu" <tytso@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:29 AM Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr> wrote:
>
> The remaining 10% is when the compositor needs a writable mapping for
> things like screen capture. It doesn't seem like a SIGBUS handler can
> be avoided in this case then=E2=80=A6 Oh well.

So as Peter Xu mentioned, if we made it a "per inode" thing, we
probably could make such an inode do the zero page fill on its own,
and it might be ok for certain cases even for shared mappings.

However, realistically I think it's a horrible idea for the generic
situation, because I think that basically requires the filesystem
itself to buy into it. And we have something like 60+ different
filesystems.

Is there some very specific and targeted pattern for that "shared
mapping" case? For example, if it's always a shared anonymous mapping
with no filesystem backing, then that would possibly be a simpler case
than the "random arbitrary shared file descriptor".

But maybe that simpler (if untested) VM patch is fine if 90% of the
time it's a plain normal non-shared mapping, and you have to have the
SIGBUS case for backwards compatibility anyway, but at least some
_benign_ cases are now handled without pain...

                    Linus