On 18.07.22 13:47, Nadav Amit wrote:
> From: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> As the next patches are going to introduce more information that needs
> to be propagated regarding handled user requests, introduce uffd_flags
> that would be used to propagate this information.
>
> Remove the unused UFFD_FLAGS_SET to avoid confusion in the constant
> names.
>
> Introducing uffd flags also allows to avoid mm/userfaultfd from being
> using uapi (e.g., UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_WP).
>
> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
>
> int mwriteprotect_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, unsigned long start,
> - unsigned long len, bool enable_wp,
> - atomic_t *mmap_changing)
> + unsigned long len,
> + atomic_t *mmap_changing, uffd_flags_t uffd_flags)
> {
> + bool enable_wp = uffd_flags & UFFD_FLAGS_WP;
Could be that this will trigger a sparse warnings, but I haven't fully
understood yet when/how sparse will start to complain. If so, this would
have to be
bool enable_wp = !!(uffd_flags & UFFD_FLAGS_WP);
I stumbled into something like that in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202202252038.ij1YGn0d-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/T/
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
