From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:49:39 +0000 Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7 Message-Id: <20171113154939.6ui2fmpokpm7g4oj@dhcp22.suse.cz> List-Id: References: <20171107162217.382cd754@canb.auug.org.au> <20171108142050.7w3yliulxjeco3b7@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171110123054.5pnefm3mczsfv7bz@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113092006.cjw2njjukt6limvb@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113094203.aofz2e7kueitk55y@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87lgjawgx1.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20171113120057.555mvrs4fjq5tyng@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to > > do vma lookup. > > It turned out that this might be much more easier than I thought after > all. It seems we can really handle that in the common code. This would > mean that we are exposing a new functionality to the userspace though. > Myabe this would be useful on its own though. Just a quick draft (not > even compile tested) whether this makes sense in general. I would be > worried about unexpected behavior when somebody set other bit without a > good reason and we might fail with ENOMEM for such a call now. Hmm, the bigger problem would be the backward compatibility actually. We would get silent corruptions which is exactly what the flag is trying fix. mmap flags handling really sucks. So I guess we would have to make the flag internal only :/ -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:49:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20171113154939.6ui2fmpokpm7g4oj@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20171107162217.382cd754@canb.auug.org.au> <20171108142050.7w3yliulxjeco3b7@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171110123054.5pnefm3mczsfv7bz@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113092006.cjw2njjukt6limvb@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113094203.aofz2e7kueitk55y@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87lgjawgx1.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20171113120057.555mvrs4fjq5tyng@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Joel Stanley , Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Russell King , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Abdul Haleem , Ralf Baechle , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , Yoshinori Sato , Rich Felker , "David S. Miller" , Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, To: Michael Ellerman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to > > do vma lookup. > > It turned out that this might be much more easier than I thought after > all. It seems we can really handle that in the common code. This would > mean that we are exposing a new functionality to the userspace though. > Myabe this would be useful on its own though. Just a quick draft (not > even compile tested) whether this makes sense in general. I would be > worried about unexpected behavior when somebody set other bit without a > good reason and we might fail with ENOMEM for such a call now. Hmm, the bigger problem would be the backward compatibility actually. We would get silent corruptions which is exactly what the flag is trying fix. mmap flags handling really sucks. So I guess we would have to make the flag internal only :/ -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753452AbdKMPtp (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:49:45 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33440 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753062AbdKMPtm (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:49:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:49:39 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Joel Stanley , Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Russell King , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Abdul Haleem , Ralf Baechle , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , Yoshinori Sato , Rich Felker , "David S. Miller" , Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7 Message-ID: <20171113154939.6ui2fmpokpm7g4oj@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20171107162217.382cd754@canb.auug.org.au> <20171108142050.7w3yliulxjeco3b7@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171110123054.5pnefm3mczsfv7bz@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113092006.cjw2njjukt6limvb@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113094203.aofz2e7kueitk55y@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87lgjawgx1.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20171113120057.555mvrs4fjq5tyng@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to > > do vma lookup. > > It turned out that this might be much more easier than I thought after > all. It seems we can really handle that in the common code. This would > mean that we are exposing a new functionality to the userspace though. > Myabe this would be useful on its own though. Just a quick draft (not > even compile tested) whether this makes sense in general. I would be > worried about unexpected behavior when somebody set other bit without a > good reason and we might fail with ENOMEM for such a call now. Hmm, the bigger problem would be the backward compatibility actually. We would get silent corruptions which is exactly what the flag is trying fix. mmap flags handling really sucks. So I guess we would have to make the flag internal only :/ -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:49:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20171113154939.6ui2fmpokpm7g4oj@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20171107162217.382cd754@canb.auug.org.au> <20171108142050.7w3yliulxjeco3b7@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171110123054.5pnefm3mczsfv7bz@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113092006.cjw2njjukt6limvb@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113094203.aofz2e7kueitk55y@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87lgjawgx1.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20171113120057.555mvrs4fjq5tyng@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: sparclinux-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Joel Stanley , Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Russell King , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Abdul Haleem , Ralf Baechle , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , Yoshinori Sato , Rich Felker , "David S. Miller" , Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to > > do vma lookup. > > It turned out that this might be much more easier than I thought after > all. It seems we can really handle that in the common code. This would > mean that we are exposing a new functionality to the userspace though. > Myabe this would be useful on its own though. Just a quick draft (not > even compile tested) whether this makes sense in general. I would be > worried about unexpected behavior when somebody set other bit without a > good reason and we might fail with ENOMEM for such a call now. Hmm, the bigger problem would be the backward compatibility actually. We would get silent corruptions which is exactly what the flag is trying fix. mmap flags handling really sucks. So I guess we would have to make the flag internal only :/ -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mhocko@kernel.org (Michal Hocko) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:49:39 +0100 Subject: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7 In-Reply-To: <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20171107162217.382cd754@canb.auug.org.au> <20171108142050.7w3yliulxjeco3b7@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171110123054.5pnefm3mczsfv7bz@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113092006.cjw2njjukt6limvb@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113094203.aofz2e7kueitk55y@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87lgjawgx1.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20171113120057.555mvrs4fjq5tyng@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz> Message-ID: <20171113154939.6ui2fmpokpm7g4oj@dhcp22.suse.cz> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to > > do vma lookup. > > It turned out that this might be much more easier than I thought after > all. It seems we can really handle that in the common code. This would > mean that we are exposing a new functionality to the userspace though. > Myabe this would be useful on its own though. Just a quick draft (not > even compile tested) whether this makes sense in general. I would be > worried about unexpected behavior when somebody set other bit without a > good reason and we might fail with ENOMEM for such a call now. Hmm, the bigger problem would be the backward compatibility actually. We would get silent corruptions which is exactly what the flag is trying fix. mmap flags handling really sucks. So I guess we would have to make the flag internal only :/ -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs