> On Mar 6, 2023, at 5:19 PM, Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> !! External Email
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:50:23PM -0800, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
>> We have a lot of functions which take an address + length pair,
>> currently passed as separate arguments. However, in our userspace API we
>> already have struct uffdio_range, which is exactly this pair, and this
>> is what we get from userspace when ioctls are called.
>>
>> Instead of splitting the struct up into two separate arguments, just
>> plumb the struct through to the functions which use it (once we get to
>> the mfill_atomic_pte level, we're dealing with single (huge)pages, so we
>> don't need both parts).
>>
>> Relatedly, for waking, just re-use this existing structure instead of
>> defining a new "struct uffdio_wake_range".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/userfaultfd.c | 107 +++++++++++++---------------------
>> include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h | 17 +++---
>> mm/userfaultfd.c | 92 ++++++++++++++---------------
>> 3 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 120 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
>> index b8e328123b71..984b63b0fc75 100644
>> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
>> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
>> @@ -95,11 +95,6 @@ struct userfaultfd_wait_queue {
>> bool waken;
>> };
>>
>> -struct userfaultfd_wake_range {
>> - unsigned long start;
>> - unsigned long len;
>> -};
>
> Would there still be a difference on e.g. 32 bits systems?
>
> [...]
>
>> static __always_inline int validate_range(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> - __u64 start, __u64 len)
>> + const struct uffdio_range *range)
>> {
>> __u64 task_size = mm->task_size;
>>
>> - if (start & ~PAGE_MASK)
>> + if (range->start & ~PAGE_MASK)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> - if (len & ~PAGE_MASK)
>> + if (range->len & ~PAGE_MASK)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> - if (!len)
>> + if (!range->len)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> - if (start < mmap_min_addr)
>> + if (range->start < mmap_min_addr)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> - if (start >= task_size)
>> + if (range->start >= task_size)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> - if (len > task_size - start)
>> + if (range->len > task_size - range->start)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> Personally I don't like a lot on such a change. :( It avoids one parameter
> being passed over but it can add a lot indirections.
>
> Do you strongly suggest this? Shall we move on without this so to not
> block the last patch (which I assume is the one you're looking for)?
Just in case you missed, it is __always_inline, so I presume that from a
generated code point-of-view it is the same.
Having said that, small assignments to local start, let and range variables
would make the code easier to read and reduce the change-set.
