On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 07:55:14PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 04:05:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:42:00 -0400 Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > uffdio_api.features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM;
> > > > uffdio_api.features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED;
> > > > uffdio_api.features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC;
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > If you run the userfaultfd selftests with the run_vmtests script we get
> > > > several failures stemming from trying to call uffdio_regsiter with the flag
> > > > UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP. However, the kernel ensures in vma_can_userfault()
> > > > that if CONFIG_PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP is disabled, only allow the VM_UFFD_WP -
> > > > which is set when you pass the UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_WP flag - on
> > > > anonymous vmas.
> > > >
> > > > In parse_test_type_arg() I added the features check against
> > > > UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED as it seemed the most well know feature/flag. I'm
> > > > more than happy to take any suggestions and adapt them if you have any!
> > >
> > > There're documents for these features in the headers:
> > >
> > > * UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM indicates that userfaultfd
> > > * write-protection mode is supported on both shmem and hugetlbfs.
> > > *
> > > * UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED indicates that userfaultfd
> > > * write-protection mode will always apply to unpopulated pages
> > > * (i.e. empty ptes). This will be the default behavior for shmem
> > > * & hugetlbfs, so this flag only affects anonymous memory behavior
> > > * when userfault write-protection mode is registered.
> > >
> > > While in this context ("test_type != TEST_ANON") IIUC the accurate feature
> > > to check is UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM.
> > >
> > > In most kernels they should behave the same indeed, but note that since
> > > UNPOPULATED was introduced later than shmem/hugetlb support, it means on
> > > some kernel the result of checking these two features will be different.
> >
> > I'm unsure what to do with this series. Peter, your review comments
> > are unclear - do you request updates?
>
> Yes, or some clarification from Audra would also work.
>
> What I was trying to say is here I think the code should check against
> UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM instead.
I was meaning to reply back and ask if Andrew wanted me to push a v3 and
change the check from UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED to
UFFD_FEATURE_WP_HUGETLBFS_SHMEM or if he just wanted to do it, but I'll go
ahead and submit v3 with the change shortly.
Also as an aside I ran scripts/get_maintainer.pl to get the email list. I
probably should have thought a little bit about why the linux-mm list was
missing....
Sorry about the delay and confusion!
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>
