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:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 04:27:35 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        Alexey Klimov <aklimov@redhat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmap(): don't allow invalid pages
Message-ID: <Yejkt/dpUKsaAu4t@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20220118235244.540103-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <Yedgj+Lo2eru8197@casper.infradead.org>
 <cfe4c63e-57c0-2a9d-c3e9-959bc77b87c6@arm.com>
 <CAAH8bW_=KtrwLpg4tx+1tdMjN2mUiuLOoZH6nvbn8qNjU6aB3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5b62ed03-8da8-a94d-cc48-a8cac1eae1c9@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5b62ed03-8da8-a94d-cc48-a8cac1eae1c9@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 09:07:11AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/19/22 10:52 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
> >> Why should not this just scan over the entire user provided struct page
> >> array and make sure that all pages there in are valid via above method,
> >> but in vmap() itself before calling vmap_pages_range(). Because seems
> >> like a single invalid page detected in vmap_pages_pte_range() will
> >> anyways abort the entire vmap(). This will also enable us to drop the
> >> existing NULL check above.
> >
> > I can do this, but why is it any better than the current approach?
> 
> Because it will just return on the first instance where the valid page
> check fails, saving us some CPU cycles and an incomplete mapping ?

The valid page check is never intended to fail!  If you're worried about
the efficiency of doing this, you have seriously confused your priorities.