On Tue 02-10-18 12:05:31, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > commit e1fb4a086495 "dax: remove VM_MIXEDMAP for fsdax and device dax" has > removed VM_MIXEDMAP flag from DAX VMAs. Now our testing shows that in the > mean time certain customer of ours started poking into /proc/<pid>/smaps > and looks at VMA flags there and if VM_MIXEDMAP is missing among the VMA > flags, the application just fails to start complaining that DAX support is > missing in the kernel. The question now is how do we go about this? Do they need to check for a general DAX support or do they need a per mapping granularity? > Strictly speaking, this is a userspace visible regression (as much as I > think that application poking into VMA flags at this level is just too > bold). Is there any precedens in handling similar issues with smaps which > really exposes a lot of information that is dependent on kernel > implementation details? Yeah, exposing all the vma flags was just a terrible idea. We have had a similar issue recently [1] for other flag that is no longer set while the implementation of the feature is still in place. I guess we really want to document that those flags are for debugging only and no stable and long term API should rely on it. Considering how new the thing really is (does anybody do anything production like out there?) I would tend to try a better interface rather than chasing after random vma flags. E.g. what prevents a completely unrelated usage of VM_MIXEDMAP? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
