Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61192-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:14:30 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
	surenb@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, aarcange@redhat.com,
	peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, axelrasmussen@google.com,
	bgeffon@google.com, willy@infradead.org, jannh@google.com,
	kaleshsingh@google.com, ngeoffray@google.com, timmurray@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] userfaultfd: protect mmap_changing with rw_sem in
 userfaulfd_ctx
Message-ID: <ZcnTZiyHRf4Dj3P2@kernel.org>
References: <20240129210014.troxejbr3mzorcvx@revolver>
 <CA+EESO6XiPfbUBgU3FukGvi_NG5XpAQxWKu7vg534t=rtWmGXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240130034627.4aupq27mksswisqg@revolver>
 <Zbi5bZWI3JkktAMh@kernel.org>
 <20240130172831.hv5z7a7bhh4enoye@revolver>
 <CA+EESO7W=yz1DyNsuDRd-KJiaOg51QWEQ_MfpHxEL99ZeLS=AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zb9mgL8XHBZpEVe7@kernel.org>
 <CA+EESO7RNn0aQhLxY+NDddNNNT6586qX08=rphU1-XmyoP5mZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZcOhW8NR9XWhVnKS@kernel.org>
 <CA+EESO6V9HiPtFpG7-cjvadj_BcKzGvi4GSdJBXD_zTM+EQu5A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CA+EESO6V9HiPtFpG7-cjvadj_BcKzGvi4GSdJBXD_zTM+EQu5A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:24:52PM -0800, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > The write-lock is not a requirement here for correctness and I don't see
> > > > why we would need userfaultfd_remove_prep().
> > > >
> > > > As I've said earlier, having a write-lock here will let CRIU to run
> > > > background copy in parallel with processing of uffd events, but I don't
> > > > feel strongly about doing it.
> > > >
> > > Got it. Anyways, such a change needn't be part of this patch, so I'm
> > > going to keep it unchanged.
> >
> > You mean with a read lock?
> 
> No, I think write lock is good as it enables parallel background copy.
> Also because it brings consistency in blocking userfaultfd operations.
> 
> I meant encapsulating remove operations within
> userfaultfd_remove_prep() and userfaultfd_remove_complete(). I
> couldn't figure out any need for that.

I don't think there is a need for that. With fork/mremap prep is required
to ensure there's uffd context for new vmas.
 
-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.