On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 7:40 AM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [240814 03:14]: > > From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > mremap doesn't allow relocate, expand, shrink across VMA boundaries, > > refactor the code to check src address range before doing anything on > > the destination, i.e. destination won't be unmapped, if src address > > failed the boundaries check. > > > > This also allows us to remove can_modify_mm from mremap.c, since > > the src address must be single VMA, can_modify_vma is used. > > I don't think sending out a separate patch to address the same thing as > the patch you said you were testing [1] is the correct approach. You > had already sent suggestions on mremap changes - why send this patch set > instead of making another suggestion? > As indicated in the cover letter, this patch aims to improve mremap performance while preserving existing mseal's semantics. And this patch can go in-dependantly regardless of in-loop out-loop discussion. [1] link in your email is broken, but I assume you meant Pedro's V1/V2 of in-loop change. In-loop change has a semantic/regression risk to mseal, and will take longer time to review/test/prove and bake. We can leave in-loop discussion in Pedro's thread, I hope the V3 of Pedro's patch adds more testing coverage and addresses existing comments in V2. Thanks -Jeff -Jeff
