From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce MAP_VALIDATE a mechanism for adding new mmap flags
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:31:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170918093137.GF32516@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170917173945.GA22200@lst.de>
On Sun 17-09-17 19:39:45, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 08:44:14PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > So it wasn't all that easy, and Linus declined to take it. I think we
> > should add a new ->mmap_validate() file operation and save the
> > tree-wide cleanup until later.
>
> Note that we already have a mmap_capabilities callout for nommu,
> I wonder if we could generalize that.
So if I understood Dan right, Linus refused to merge the patch which adds
'flags' argument to ->mmap callback. That is actually logically independent
change from validating flags passed to mmap(2) syscall. Dan did it just to
save himself from adding a VMA flag for MAP_DIRECT.
For validating flags passed to mmap(2), I agree we could use
->mmap_capabilities() instead of mmap_supported_mask Dan has added. But I
don't have a strong opinion there.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce MAP_VALIDATE a mechanism for adding new mmap flags
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:31:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170918093137.GF32516@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170917173945.GA22200@lst.de>
On Sun 17-09-17 19:39:45, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 08:44:14PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > So it wasn't all that easy, and Linus declined to take it. I think we
> > should add a new ->mmap_validate() file operation and save the
> > tree-wide cleanup until later.
>
> Note that we already have a mmap_capabilities callout for nommu,
> I wonder if we could generalize that.
So if I understood Dan right, Linus refused to merge the patch which adds
'flags' argument to ->mmap callback. That is actually logically independent
change from validating flags passed to mmap(2) syscall. Dan did it just to
save himself from adding a VMA flag for MAP_DIRECT.
For validating flags passed to mmap(2), I agree we could use
->mmap_capabilities() instead of mmap_supported_mask Dan has added. But I
don't have a strong opinion there.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce MAP_VALIDATE a mechanism for adding new mmap flags
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:31:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170918093137.GF32516@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170917173945.GA22200@lst.de>
On Sun 17-09-17 19:39:45, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 08:44:14PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > So it wasn't all that easy, and Linus declined to take it. I think we
> > should add a new ->mmap_validate() file operation and save the
> > tree-wide cleanup until later.
>
> Note that we already have a mmap_capabilities callout for nommu,
> I wonder if we could generalize that.
So if I understood Dan right, Linus refused to merge the patch which adds
'flags' argument to ->mmap callback. That is actually logically independent
change from validating flags passed to mmap(2) syscall. Dan did it just to
save himself from adding a VMA flag for MAP_DIRECT.
For validating flags passed to mmap(2), I agree we could use
->mmap_capabilities() instead of mmap_supported_mask Dan has added. But I
don't have a strong opinion there.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Kara <jack-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch-jcswGhMUV9g@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org"
<linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
Linux API <linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong"
<darrick.wong-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-xfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-mm <linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
linux-fsdevel
<linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce MAP_VALIDATE a mechanism for adding new mmap flags
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:31:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170918093137.GF32516@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170917173945.GA22200-jcswGhMUV9g@public.gmane.org>
On Sun 17-09-17 19:39:45, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 08:44:14PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > So it wasn't all that easy, and Linus declined to take it. I think we
> > should add a new ->mmap_validate() file operation and save the
> > tree-wide cleanup until later.
>
> Note that we already have a mmap_capabilities callout for nommu,
> I wonder if we could generalize that.
So if I understood Dan right, Linus refused to merge the patch which adds
'flags' argument to ->mmap callback. That is actually logically independent
change from validating flags passed to mmap(2) syscall. Dan did it just to
save himself from adding a VMA flag for MAP_DIRECT.
For validating flags passed to mmap(2), I agree we could use
->mmap_capabilities() instead of mmap_supported_mask Dan has added. But I
don't have a strong opinion there.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-18 9:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-15 6:12 [PATCH v4 0/3] MAP_DIRECT and block-map sealed files Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] fs, xfs: introduce S_IOMAP_SEALED Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce MAP_VALIDATE a mechanism for adding new mmap flags Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 12:27 ` Jan Kara
2017-08-15 12:27 ` Jan Kara
2017-08-15 16:24 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 16:24 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 16:24 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 16:24 ` Dan Williams
2017-09-17 3:44 ` Dan Williams
2017-09-17 3:44 ` Dan Williams
2017-09-17 3:44 ` Dan Williams
2017-09-17 17:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-17 17:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-17 17:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-18 9:31 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2017-09-18 9:31 ` Jan Kara
2017-09-18 9:31 ` Jan Kara
2017-09-18 9:31 ` Jan Kara
2017-09-18 15:47 ` Dan Williams
2017-09-18 15:47 ` Dan Williams
2017-09-18 9:26 ` Jan Kara
2017-09-18 9:26 ` Jan Kara
2017-09-18 9:26 ` Jan Kara
2017-08-15 16:28 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-08-15 16:28 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-08-15 16:28 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-08-15 22:31 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 22:31 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-17 8:06 ` kbuild test robot
2017-08-17 8:06 ` kbuild test robot
2017-08-15 6:12 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] fs, xfs: introduce MAP_DIRECT for creating block-map-sealed file ranges Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 6:12 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 9:18 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-08-15 9:18 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-08-15 9:18 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-08-15 17:11 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 17:11 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 17:11 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-16 10:25 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-08-16 10:25 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-08-16 10:25 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-08-15 12:42 ` Jan Kara
2017-08-15 12:42 ` Jan Kara
2017-08-15 12:42 ` Jan Kara
2017-08-15 16:29 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 16:29 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 16:29 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-15 16:29 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-16 1:15 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-16 1:15 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-16 1:15 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-16 1:15 ` Dan Williams
2017-08-17 8:49 ` kbuild test robot
2017-08-17 8:49 ` kbuild test robot
2017-08-17 8:49 ` kbuild test robot
2017-08-15 9:01 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] MAP_DIRECT and block-map sealed files Dave Chinner
2017-08-15 9:01 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-15 9:01 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170918093137.GF32516@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.