On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 07:49:38PM +0530, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
> Thanks Andrew and Minchan.
>
> On 3/16/2022 7:13 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:48:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 15:58:28 -0700 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 08:59:06PM +0530, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
> >>>> The process_madvise() system call is expected to skip holes in vma
> >>>> passed through 'struct iovec' vector list. But do_madvise, which
> >>>> process_madvise() calls for each vma, returns ENOMEM in case of unmapped
> >>>> holes, despite the VMA is processed.
> >>>> Thus process_madvise() should treat ENOMEM as expected and consider the
> >>>> VMA passed to as processed and continue processing other vma's in the
> >>>> vector list. Returning -ENOMEM to user, despite the VMA is processed,
> >>>> will be unable to figure out where to start the next madvise.
> >>>> Fixes: ecb8ac8b1f14("mm/madvise: introduce process_madvise() syscall: an external memory hinting API")
> >>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.10+
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, not sure whether it's stable material since it changes semantic of
> >>> API. It would be better to change the semantic from 5.19 with man page
> >>> update to specify the change.
> >>
> >> It's a very desirable change and it makes the code match the manpage
> >> and it's cc:stable. I think we should just absorb any transitory
> >> damage which this causes people. I doubt if there will be much - if
> >> anyone was affected by this they would have already told us that it's
> >> broken?
> >
> >
> > process_madvise fails to return exact processed bytes at several cases
> > if it encounters the error, such as, -EINVAL, -EINTR, -ENOMEM in the
> > middle of processing vmas. And now we are trying to make exception for
> > change for only hole?
> I think EINTR will never return in the middle of processing VMA's for
> the behaviours supported by process_madvise().
>
> It can return EINTR when:
> -------------------------
> 1) PTRACE_MODE_READ is being checked in mm_access() where it is waiting
> on task->signal->exec_update_lock. EINTR returned from here guarantees
> that process_madvise() didn't event start processing.
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.16.14/source/mm/madvise.c#L1264 -->
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.16.14/source/kernel/fork.c#L1318
>
> 2) The process_madvise() started processing VMA's but the required
> behavior on a VMA needs mmap_write_lock_killable(), from where EINTR is
> returned. The current behaviours supported by process_madvise(),
> MADV_COLD, PAGEOUT, WILLNEED, just need read lock here.
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.16.14/source/mm/madvise.c#L1164
> **Thus I think no way for EINTR can be returned by process_madvise() in
> the middle of processing.** . No?
>
> for EINVAL:
> -----------
> The only case, I can think of, where EINVAL can be returned in the
> middle of processing is in examples like, given range contains VMA's
> with a hole in between and one of the VMA contains the pages that fails
> can_madv_lru_vma() condition.
> So, it's a limitation that this returns -EINVAL though some bytes are
> processed.
> OR
> Since there exists still some invalid bytes processed it is valid to
> return -EINVAL here and user has to check the address range sent?
>
> for ENOMEM:
> ----------
> Though complete range is processed still returns ENOMEM. IMO, This
> shouldn't be treated as error which the patch is targeted for. Then
> there is limitation case that you mentioned below where it returns
> positive processes bytes even though it didn't process anything if it
> couldn't find any vma for the first iteration in madvise_walk_vmas
>
> I think the above limitations with EINVAL and ENOMEM are arising because
> we are relying on do_madvise() functionality which madvise() call uses
> to process a single VMA. When 'struct iovec' vector processing interface
> is given in a system call, it is the expectation by the caller that this
> system call should return the correct bytes processed to help the user
> to take the correct decisions. Please correct me If i am wrong here.
>
> So, should we add the new function say do_process_madvise(), which take
> cares of above limitations? or any alternative suggestions here please?
What I am thinking now is that the process_madvise needs own iterator(i.e.,
do_process_madvise) and it should represent exact bytes it addressed with
exacts ranges like process_vm_readv/writev. Poviding valid ranges is
responsiblity from the user.
>
> > IMO, it's worth to note in man page.
> >
>
> Or the current patch for just ENOMEM is sufficient here and we just have
> to update the man page?
>
> > In addition, this change returns positive processes bytes even though
> > it didn't process anything if it couldn't find any vma for the first
> > iteration in madvise_walk_vmas.
>
> Thanks,
> Charan
>
