Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <aabd4bb8-560b-10b0-9837-b656e1a0a9e1@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 09:44:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/mprotect: Use long for page accountings and retval
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20230104225207.1066932-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20230104225207.1066932-3-peterx@redhat.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <20230104225207.1066932-3-peterx@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 04.01.23 23:52, Peter Xu wrote:
> Switch to use type "long" for page accountings and retval across the whole
> procedure of change_protection().
> 
> The change should have shrinked the possible maximum page number to be half
> comparing to previous (ULONG_MAX / 2), but it shouldn't overflow on any
> system either because the maximum possible pages touched by change
> protection should be ULONG_MAX / PAGE_SIZE.

Yeah, highly unlikely.

> 
> Two reasons to switch from "unsigned long" to "long":
> 
>    1. It suites better on count_vm_numa_events(), whose 2nd parameter takes
>       a long type.
> 
>    2. It paves way for returning negative (error) values in the future.
> 
> Currently the only caller that consumes this retval is change_prot_numa(),
> where the unsigned long was converted to an int.  Since at it, touching up
> the numa code to also take a long, so it'll avoid any possible overflow too
> during the int-size convertion.

I'm wondering if we should just return the number of changed pages via a 
separate pointer and later using an int for returning errors -- when 
touching this interface already.

Only who's actually interested in the number of pages would pass a 
pointer to an unsigned long (NUMA).

And code that expects that there never ever are failures (mprotect, 
NUMA) could simply check for WARN_ON_ONCE(ret).

I assume you evaluated that option as well, what was your conclusion?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb