From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752201AbaGGVBU (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:01:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20521 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751247AbaGGVBR (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:01:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:59:56 -0400 From: Naoya Horiguchi To: Dave Hansen Cc: Andrew Morton , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Wu Fengguang , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Borislav Petkov , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Johannes Weiner , Rusty Russell , David Miller , Andres Freund , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Michael Kerrisk , Linux API , Naoya Horiguchi Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] man2/fincore.2: document general description about fincore(2) Message-ID: <20140707205956.GB5031@nhori.bos.redhat.com> References: <1404756006-23794-1-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> <1404756006-23794-4-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> <53BAF01C.8010700@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53BAF01C.8010700@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 12:08:12PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 07/07/2014 11:00 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > +.SH RETURN VALUE > > +On success, > > +.BR fincore () > > +returns 0. > > +On error, \-1 is returned, and > > +.I errno > > +is set appropriately. > > Is this accurate? From reading the syscall itself, it looked like it > did this: > > > + * Return value is the number of pages whose data is stored in fc->buffer. > > + */ > > +static long do_fincore(struct fincore_control *fc, int nr_pages) > > and: > > > +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(fincore, int, fd, loff_t, start, long, nr_pages, > ... > > + while (fc.nr_pages > 0) { > > + memset(fc.buffer, 0, fc.buffer_size); > > + ret = do_fincore(&fc, min(step, fc.nr_pages)); > > + /* Reached the end of the file */ > > + if (ret == 0) > > + break; > > + if (ret < 0) > > + break; > ... > > + } > ... > > + return ret; > > +} > > Which seems that for a given loop of do_fincore(), you might end up > returning the result of that *single* iteration of do_fincore() instead > of the aggregate of the entire syscall. > > So, it can return <0 on failure, 0 on success, or also an essentially > random >0 number on success too. We don't break this while loop if do_fincore() returned a positive value unless copy_to_user() fails. And in that case ret is set to -EFAULT. So I think sys_fincore() never returns a positive value. BTW, we don't have to check "if (ret == 0)" and "if (ret < 0)" separately, I'll fix it. > Why not just use the return value for something useful instead of > hacking in the extras->nr_entries stuff? Hmm, I got the opposite complaint previously, where we shouldn't interpret the return value differently depending on the flag. And I'd like to keep the extra argument for future extensibility. For example, if we want to collect pages only with a specific set of page flags, this extra argument will be necessary. > Oh, and what if that > > > + if (extra) > > + __put_user(nr, &extra->nr_entries); > > fails? It seems like we might silently forget to tell userspace how > many entries we filled. Oh, I forget to check it. Thanks, Naoya Horiguchi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Naoya Horiguchi Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] man2/fincore.2: document general description about fincore(2) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:59:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20140707205956.GB5031@nhori.bos.redhat.com> References: <1404756006-23794-1-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> <1404756006-23794-4-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> <53BAF01C.8010700@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53BAF01C.8010700@intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Hansen Cc: Andrew Morton , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Wu Fengguang , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Borislav Petkov , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Johannes Weiner , Rusty Russell , David Miller , Andres Freund , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Michael Kerrisk , Linux API , Naoya Horiguchi List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 12:08:12PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 07/07/2014 11:00 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > +.SH RETURN VALUE > > +On success, > > +.BR fincore () > > +returns 0. > > +On error, \-1 is returned, and > > +.I errno > > +is set appropriately. > > Is this accurate? From reading the syscall itself, it looked like it > did this: > > > + * Return value is the number of pages whose data is stored in fc->buffer. > > + */ > > +static long do_fincore(struct fincore_control *fc, int nr_pages) > > and: > > > +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(fincore, int, fd, loff_t, start, long, nr_pages, > ... > > + while (fc.nr_pages > 0) { > > + memset(fc.buffer, 0, fc.buffer_size); > > + ret = do_fincore(&fc, min(step, fc.nr_pages)); > > + /* Reached the end of the file */ > > + if (ret == 0) > > + break; > > + if (ret < 0) > > + break; > ... > > + } > ... > > + return ret; > > +} > > Which seems that for a given loop of do_fincore(), you might end up > returning the result of that *single* iteration of do_fincore() instead > of the aggregate of the entire syscall. > > So, it can return <0 on failure, 0 on success, or also an essentially > random >0 number on success too. We don't break this while loop if do_fincore() returned a positive value unless copy_to_user() fails. And in that case ret is set to -EFAULT. So I think sys_fincore() never returns a positive value. BTW, we don't have to check "if (ret == 0)" and "if (ret < 0)" separately, I'll fix it. > Why not just use the return value for something useful instead of > hacking in the extras->nr_entries stuff? Hmm, I got the opposite complaint previously, where we shouldn't interpret the return value differently depending on the flag. And I'd like to keep the extra argument for future extensibility. For example, if we want to collect pages only with a specific set of page flags, this extra argument will be necessary. > Oh, and what if that > > > + if (extra) > > + __put_user(nr, &extra->nr_entries); > > fails? It seems like we might silently forget to tell userspace how > many entries we filled. Oh, I forget to check it. Thanks, Naoya Horiguchi -- 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: email@kvack.org