Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-64198-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+EESO5TNubw4vi08P6BO-4XKTLNVeNfjM92ieZJTd_oJt9Ygw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240213170609.s3queephdyxzrz7j@revolver> <CA+EESO5URPpJj35-jQy+Lrp1EtKms8r1ri2ZY3ZOpsSJU+CScw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJuCfpFXWJovv6G4ou2nK2W1D2-JGb5Hw8m77-pOq4Rh24-q9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240213184905.tp4i2ifbglfzlwi6@revolver> <CAJuCfpG+8uypn3Mw0GNBj0TUM51gaSdAnGZB-RE4HdJs7dKb0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EESO6M5VudYK-CqT2snvs25dnrdTLzzKAjoSe7368X-PcFew@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240213192744.5fqwrlqz5bbvqtf5@revolver> <CAJuCfpEvdK-jOS9a7yv1_KnFeyu8665gFtk871ac-y+3BiMbVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EESO6TowKNh10+tzwawBemykVcVDP+_ep1fg-_RiqBzfR7ew@mail.gmail.com> <20240213195125.yhg5ti6qrchpela6@revolver>
In-Reply-To: <20240213195125.yhg5ti6qrchpela6@revolver>
From: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:55:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+EESO5F7RB-_AwgxPV=9tCKx=E59sbaxvtc4q3u4sCL6PpcTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>, Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, 
	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, rppt@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:51=E2=80=AFAM Liam R. Howlett
<Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> * Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> [240213 14:37]:
> ...
>
> > Asking to avoid any more iterations: these functions should call the
> > currently defined ones or should replace them. For instance, should I
> > do the following:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> > ... uffd_mfill_lock()
> > {
> >         return find_and_lock_dst_vma(...);
> > }
> > #else
> > ...uffd_mfill_lock()
> > {
> >        return lock_mm_and_find_dst_vma(...);
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > or have the function replace
> > find_and_lock_dst_vma()/lock_mm_and_find_dst_vma() ?
>
> Since the two have the same prototype, then you can replace the function
> names directly.
>
> The other side should take the vma and use vma->vm_mm to get the mm to
> unlock the mmap_lock in the !CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK.  That way those
> prototypes also match and can use the same names directly.
>
> move_pages() requires unlocking two VMAs or one, so pass both VMAs
> through and do the check in there.  This, unfortunately means that one
> of the VMAs will not be used in the !CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK case.  You
> could add an assert to ensure src_vma is locked prior to using dst_vma
> to unlock the mmap_lock(), to avoid potential bot emails.
>
Perfect. Will do that and address the other comments you had on v5 as well.

Regarding int vs long for 'err' type, I'm assuming you are ok with my
explanation and I should keep long?

> Thanks,
> Liam