On Thu 13-10-16 01:20:10, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:

This patch series adjusts functions in the get_user_pages* family such that
desired FOLL_* flags are passed as an argument rather than implied by flags.

The purpose of this change is to make the use of FOLL_FORCE explicit so it is
easier to grep for and clearer to callers that this flag is being used. The use
of FOLL_FORCE is an issue as it overrides missing VM_READ/VM_WRITE flags for the
VMA whose pages we are reading from/writing to, which can result in surprising
behaviour.

The patch series came out of the discussion around commit 38e0885, which
addressed a BUG_ON() being triggered when a page was faulted in with PROT_NONE
set but having been overridden by FOLL_FORCE. do_numa_page() was run on the
assumption the page _must_ be one marked for NUMA node migration as an actual
PROT_NONE page would have been dealt with prior to this code path, however
FOLL_FORCE introduced a situation where this assumption did not hold.

See https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m7585445805166 for the patch proposal.

I like this cleanup. Tracking FOLL_FORCE users was always a nightmare
and the flag behavior is really subtle so we should better be explicit
about it. I haven't gone through each patch separately but rather
applied the whole series and checked the resulting diff. This all seems
OK to me and feel free to add
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check
mm != current->mm and imply that. Maybe there are some contexts which
wouldn't work, I haven't checked.

Then I am also wondering about FOLL_TOUCH behavior.
__get_user_pages_unlocked has only few callers which used to be
get_user_pages_unlocked before 1e9877902dc7e ("mm/gup: Introduce
get_user_pages_remote()"). To me a dropped FOLL_TOUCH seems
unintentional. Now that get_user_pages_unlocked has gup_flags argument I
guess we might want to get rid of the __g-u-p-u version altogether, no?

__get_user_pages is quite low level and imho shouldn't be exported. It's
only user - kvm - should rather pull those two functions to gup instead
and export them. There is nothing really KVM specific in them.

I also cannot say I would be entirely thrilled about get_user_pages_locked,
we only have one user which can simply do lock g-u-p unlock AFAICS.

I guess there is more work in that area and I do not want to impose all
that work on you, but I couldn't resist once I saw you playing in that
area ;) Definitely a good start!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs