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: <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>
In-Reply-To: <5b62ed03-8da8-a94d-cc48-a8cac1eae1c9@arm.com>
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 18:56:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAH8bW_wL7=7+Jj6vXmQSe_az0BvS_otxhBe4LOKU5fcJV9aXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmap(): don't allow invalid pages
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Anshuman Khandual
<anshuman.khandual@arm.com> 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 ?

This should normally never happen, that's why warn_on() is there. If it
happens, there is a serious problem, and the code must be fixed. So,
no CPU cycles saving in real life.