On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 3:04 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 10:08:36AM -0800, Kalesh Singh wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 8:22 AM Suren Baghdasaryan [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 5:18 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 01:44:20PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 20.02.25 11:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 11:03:02AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Your conclusion is 'did not participate with upstream'; I don't agree with
that. But maybe you and Kalesh have a history on that that let's you react
on his questions IMHO more emotionally than it should have been.

This is wholly unfair, I have been very reasonable in response to this
thread. I have offered to find solutions, I have tried to understand the
problem in spite of having gone to great lengths to try to discuss the
limitations of the proposed approach in every venue I possibly could.

I go out of my way to deal professionally and objectively with what is
presented. Nothing here is emotional. So I'd ask that you please abstain
from making commentary like this which has no basis.

I appreciate everything you write below. But this request is just
impossible. I will keep raising my opinion and misunderstandings will
happen.

Well I wouldn't ask you not to express your opinion David, you know I respect
and like you, and by all means push back hard or call out what you think is bad
behaviour :)

I just meant to say, in my view, that there was no basis, but I appreciate
miscommunications happen.

quoted

So apologies if I came off as being difficult or rude, it actually

wasn't

quoted

intended. And to re-emphasise - I have zero personal issue with anybody in this
thread whatsoever!

It sounded to me like you were trying to defend your work (again, IMHO too
emotionally, and I might have completely misinterpreted that) and slowly
switching to "friendly fire" (towards me). Apologies from my side if I
completely misunderstood/misinterpreted that.

Right this was not at all my intent, sorry if it seemed that way. I may well
have communicated terribly, so apologies on my side too.

Hi everyone,

Thank you for all the discussion.

I don't find any personal issues with the communication in this
thread, but I appreciate David being the object voice of reason.

I understand it can be frustrating since you have made many efforts to
communicate these tradeoffs. Unfortunately these issues were not known
for the file-backed ELF guard regions for my particular use case.

quoted

Sorry for being late to the party. Was sick for a couple of days.
Lorenzo is right, there was a breakdown in communication at Google and
he has all the rights to be upset. The issue with obfuscators should
have been communicated once it was discovered. I was in regular
discussions with Lorenzo but wasn't directly involved with this
particular project and wasn't aware or did not realize that the
obfuscator issue renders guards unusable for this usecase. My
apologies, I should have asked more questions about it. I suspect
Lorenzo would have implemented this anyway...

Suren's use case is different from mine and this design fits perfectly
for anon guard regions from the allocator. :)

So I think in conclusion, these aren't VMAs and shouldn't be treated
as such; we will advertise them from pagemap for those who need to
know.

Thanks Kalesh, glad there were no issues here and we have found
constructive common ground! :)

It turns out implementing the pagemap side of things is _really_
straightforward, so I'll be sending a series for that shortly. Hopefully
this provides some basis for whichever use cases need this information, as
it is the best and least invasive place for this information at this stage.

Hi Lorenzo,

Reviewed your patches, agreed that is the cleanest way to advertise
this information.

Thanks,
Kalesh

Cheers, Lorenzo

quoted

-- Kalesh