On Mon, Oct 09, 2023, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 07:32:48AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Yeah, we found that out the hard way. Is using the "secure" variant to get a > > per-file inode a sane approach, or is that abuse that's going to bite us too? > > > > /* > > * Use the so called "secure" variant, which creates a unique inode > > * instead of reusing a single inode. Each guest_memfd instance needs > > * its own inode to track the size, flags, etc. > > */ > > file = anon_inode_getfile_secure(anon_name, &kvm_gmem_fops, gmem, > > O_RDWR, NULL); > > Umm... Is there any chance that your call site will ever be in a module? > If not, you are probably OK with that variant. Yes, this code can be compiled as a module. I assume there issues with the inode outliving the module?
