On Tue 01-03-16 18:22:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 05:08:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

On Tue 01-03-16 17:57:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 04:52:12PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

[CCing vhost-net maintainer]

On Mon 29-02-16 20:02:09, Vladimir Davydov wrote:

quoted

An mm_struct may be pinned by a file. An example is vhost-net device
created by a qemu/kvm (see vhost_net_ioctl -> vhost_net_set_owner ->
vhost_dev_set_owner).

The more I think about that the more I am wondering whether this is
actually OK and correct. Why does the driver have to pin the address
space? Nothing really prevents from parallel tearing down of the address
space anyway so the code cannot expect all the vmas to stay. Would it be
enough to pin the mm_struct only?

I'll need to research this. It's a fact that as long as the
device is not stopped, vhost can attempt to access
the address space.

But does it expect any specific parts of the address space to be mapped?
E.g. proc needs to keep the mm allocated as well for some files but it
doesn't pin the address space (mm_users) but rather mm_count (see
proc_mem_open).

At a quick glance, it seems that it's needed: it calls
get_user_pages(mm) and that looks like it will not DTRT (or even fail
gracefully) if mm->mm_users == 0 and exit_mmap/etc was already called
(or is in progress).

yes it will fail gracefully but what does prevent from munmap now? The
VMA can go away and get_user_pages would fail as well.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>