All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Idan Yaniv <idan.yaniv@ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	lin ux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 19:43:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201102174308.GF4879@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9c38ac3b-c677-6a87-ce82-ec53b69eaf71@redhat.com>

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:11:12AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.09.20 15:28, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is an implementation of "secret" mappings backed by a file descriptor.
> > I've dropped the boot time reservation patch for now as it is not strictly
> > required for the basic usage and can be easily added later either with or
> > without CMA.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I'd like to stress again that I'd prefer *any* secretmem allocations going
> via CMA as long as these pages are unmovable. The user can allocate a
> non-significant amount of unmovable allocations only fenced by the mlock
> limit, which behave very different to mlocked pages - they are not movable
> for page compaction/migration.
> 
> Assume you have a system with quite some ZONE_MOVABLE memory (esp. in
> virtualized environments), eating up a significant amount of !ZONE_MOVABLE
> memory dynamically at runtime can lead to non-obvious issues. It looks like
> you have plenty of free memory, but the kernel might still OOM when trying
> to do kernel allocations e.g., for pagetables. With CMA we at least know
> what we're dealing with - it behaves like ZONE_MOVABLE except for the owner
> that can place unmovable pages there. We can use it to compute statically
> the amount of ZONE_MOVABLE memory we can have in the system without doing
> harm to the system.

Why would you say that secretmem allocates from !ZONE_MOVABLE?
If we put boot time reservations aside, the memory allocation for
secretmem follows the same rules as the memory allocations for any file
descriptor. That means we allocate memory with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE.
After the allocation the memory indeed becomes unmovable but it's not
like we are eating memory from other zones here.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that using CMA for any
secretmem allocation would needlessly complicate things.

> Ideally, we would want to support page migration/compaction and allow for
> allocation from ZONE_MOVABLE as well. Would involve temporarily mapping,
> copying, unmapping. Sounds feasible, but not sure which roadblocks we would
> find on the way.

We can support migration/compaction with temporary mapping. The first
roadblock I've hit there was that migration allocates 4K destination
page and if we use it in secret map we are back to scrambling the direct
map into 4K pieces. It still sounds feasible but not as trivial :)

But again, there is nothing in the current form of secretmem that
prevents allocation from ZONE_MOVABLE.

> [...]
> 
> > I've hesitated whether to continue to use new flags to memfd_create() or to
> > add a new system call and I've decided to use a new system call after I've
> > started to look into man pages update. There would have been two completely
> > independent descriptions and I think it would have been very confusing.
> 
> This was also raised on lwn.net by "dullfire" [1]. I do wonder if it would
> be the right place as well.

I lean towards a dedicated syscall because, as I said, to me it would
seem less confusing.

> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/835342/#Comments
> 
> > 
> > Hiding secret memory mappings behind an anonymous file allows (ab)use of
> > the page cache for tracking pages allocated for the "secret" mappings as
> > well as using address_space_operations for e.g. page migration callbacks.
> > 
> > The anonymous file may be also used implicitly, like hugetlb files, to
> > implement mmap(MAP_SECRET) and use the secret memory areas with "native" mm
> > ABIs in the future.
> > 
> > As the fragmentation of the direct map was one of the major concerns raised
> > during the previous postings, I've added an amortizing cache of PMD-size
> > pages to each file descriptor that is used as an allocation pool for the
> > secret memory areas.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Idan Yaniv <idan.yaniv@ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 19:43:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201102174308.GF4879@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9c38ac3b-c677-6a87-ce82-ec53b69eaf71@redhat.com>

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:11:12AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.09.20 15:28, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is an implementation of "secret" mappings backed by a file descriptor.
> > I've dropped the boot time reservation patch for now as it is not strictly
> > required for the basic usage and can be easily added later either with or
> > without CMA.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I'd like to stress again that I'd prefer *any* secretmem allocations going
> via CMA as long as these pages are unmovable. The user can allocate a
> non-significant amount of unmovable allocations only fenced by the mlock
> limit, which behave very different to mlocked pages - they are not movable
> for page compaction/migration.
> 
> Assume you have a system with quite some ZONE_MOVABLE memory (esp. in
> virtualized environments), eating up a significant amount of !ZONE_MOVABLE
> memory dynamically at runtime can lead to non-obvious issues. It looks like
> you have plenty of free memory, but the kernel might still OOM when trying
> to do kernel allocations e.g., for pagetables. With CMA we at least know
> what we're dealing with - it behaves like ZONE_MOVABLE except for the owner
> that can place unmovable pages there. We can use it to compute statically
> the amount of ZONE_MOVABLE memory we can have in the system without doing
> harm to the system.

Why would you say that secretmem allocates from !ZONE_MOVABLE?
If we put boot time reservations aside, the memory allocation for
secretmem follows the same rules as the memory allocations for any file
descriptor. That means we allocate memory with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE.
After the allocation the memory indeed becomes unmovable but it's not
like we are eating memory from other zones here.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that using CMA for any
secretmem allocation would needlessly complicate things.

> Ideally, we would want to support page migration/compaction and allow for
> allocation from ZONE_MOVABLE as well. Would involve temporarily mapping,
> copying, unmapping. Sounds feasible, but not sure which roadblocks we would
> find on the way.

We can support migration/compaction with temporary mapping. The first
roadblock I've hit there was that migration allocates 4K destination
page and if we use it in secret map we are back to scrambling the direct
map into 4K pieces. It still sounds feasible but not as trivial :)

But again, there is nothing in the current form of secretmem that
prevents allocation from ZONE_MOVABLE.

> [...]
> 
> > I've hesitated whether to continue to use new flags to memfd_create() or to
> > add a new system call and I've decided to use a new system call after I've
> > started to look into man pages update. There would have been two completely
> > independent descriptions and I think it would have been very confusing.
> 
> This was also raised on lwn.net by "dullfire" [1]. I do wonder if it would
> be the right place as well.

I lean towards a dedicated syscall because, as I said, to me it would
seem less confusing.

> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/835342/#Comments
> 
> > 
> > Hiding secret memory mappings behind an anonymous file allows (ab)use of
> > the page cache for tracking pages allocated for the "secret" mappings as
> > well as using address_space_operations for e.g. page migration callbacks.
> > 
> > The anonymous file may be also used implicitly, like hugetlb files, to
> > implement mmap(MAP_SECRET) and use the secret memory areas with "native" mm
> > ABIs in the future.
> > 
> > As the fragmentation of the direct map was one of the major concerns raised
> > during the previous postings, I've added an amortizing cache of PMD-size
> > pages to each file descriptor that is used as an allocation pool for the
> > secret memory areas.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Idan Yaniv <idan.yaniv@ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
	linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 19:43:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201102174308.GF4879@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9c38ac3b-c677-6a87-ce82-ec53b69eaf71@redhat.com>

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:11:12AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.09.20 15:28, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is an implementation of "secret" mappings backed by a file descriptor.
> > I've dropped the boot time reservation patch for now as it is not strictly
> > required for the basic usage and can be easily added later either with or
> > without CMA.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I'd like to stress again that I'd prefer *any* secretmem allocations going
> via CMA as long as these pages are unmovable. The user can allocate a
> non-significant amount of unmovable allocations only fenced by the mlock
> limit, which behave very different to mlocked pages - they are not movable
> for page compaction/migration.
> 
> Assume you have a system with quite some ZONE_MOVABLE memory (esp. in
> virtualized environments), eating up a significant amount of !ZONE_MOVABLE
> memory dynamically at runtime can lead to non-obvious issues. It looks like
> you have plenty of free memory, but the kernel might still OOM when trying
> to do kernel allocations e.g., for pagetables. With CMA we at least know
> what we're dealing with - it behaves like ZONE_MOVABLE except for the owner
> that can place unmovable pages there. We can use it to compute statically
> the amount of ZONE_MOVABLE memory we can have in the system without doing
> harm to the system.

Why would you say that secretmem allocates from !ZONE_MOVABLE?
If we put boot time reservations aside, the memory allocation for
secretmem follows the same rules as the memory allocations for any file
descriptor. That means we allocate memory with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE.
After the allocation the memory indeed becomes unmovable but it's not
like we are eating memory from other zones here.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that using CMA for any
secretmem allocation would needlessly complicate things.

> Ideally, we would want to support page migration/compaction and allow for
> allocation from ZONE_MOVABLE as well. Would involve temporarily mapping,
> copying, unmapping. Sounds feasible, but not sure which roadblocks we would
> find on the way.

We can support migration/compaction with temporary mapping. The first
roadblock I've hit there was that migration allocates 4K destination
page and if we use it in secret map we are back to scrambling the direct
map into 4K pieces. It still sounds feasible but not as trivial :)

But again, there is nothing in the current form of secretmem that
prevents allocation from ZONE_MOVABLE.

> [...]
> 
> > I've hesitated whether to continue to use new flags to memfd_create() or to
> > add a new system call and I've decided to use a new system call after I've
> > started to look into man pages update. There would have been two completely
> > independent descriptions and I think it would have been very confusing.
> 
> This was also raised on lwn.net by "dullfire" [1]. I do wonder if it would
> be the right place as well.

I lean towards a dedicated syscall because, as I said, to me it would
seem less confusing.

> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/835342/#Comments
> 
> > 
> > Hiding secret memory mappings behind an anonymous file allows (ab)use of
> > the page cache for tracking pages allocated for the "secret" mappings as
> > well as using address_space_operations for e.g. page migration callbacks.
> > 
> > The anonymous file may be also used implicitly, like hugetlb files, to
> > implement mmap(MAP_SECRET) and use the secret memory areas with "native" mm
> > ABIs in the future.
> > 
> > As the fragmentation of the direct map was one of the major concerns raised
> > during the previous postings, I've added an amortizing cache of PMD-size
> > pages to each file descriptor that is used as an allocation pool for the
> > secret memory areas.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Idan Yaniv <idan.yaniv@ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
	linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 19:43:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201102174308.GF4879@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9c38ac3b-c677-6a87-ce82-ec53b69eaf71@redhat.com>

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:11:12AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.09.20 15:28, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is an implementation of "secret" mappings backed by a file descriptor.
> > I've dropped the boot time reservation patch for now as it is not strictly
> > required for the basic usage and can be easily added later either with or
> > without CMA.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I'd like to stress again that I'd prefer *any* secretmem allocations going
> via CMA as long as these pages are unmovable. The user can allocate a
> non-significant amount of unmovable allocations only fenced by the mlock
> limit, which behave very different to mlocked pages - they are not movable
> for page compaction/migration.
> 
> Assume you have a system with quite some ZONE_MOVABLE memory (esp. in
> virtualized environments), eating up a significant amount of !ZONE_MOVABLE
> memory dynamically at runtime can lead to non-obvious issues. It looks like
> you have plenty of free memory, but the kernel might still OOM when trying
> to do kernel allocations e.g., for pagetables. With CMA we at least know
> what we're dealing with - it behaves like ZONE_MOVABLE except for the owner
> that can place unmovable pages there. We can use it to compute statically
> the amount of ZONE_MOVABLE memory we can have in the system without doing
> harm to the system.

Why would you say that secretmem allocates from !ZONE_MOVABLE?
If we put boot time reservations aside, the memory allocation for
secretmem follows the same rules as the memory allocations for any file
descriptor. That means we allocate memory with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE.
After the allocation the memory indeed becomes unmovable but it's not
like we are eating memory from other zones here.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that using CMA for any
secretmem allocation would needlessly complicate things.

> Ideally, we would want to support page migration/compaction and allow for
> allocation from ZONE_MOVABLE as well. Would involve temporarily mapping,
> copying, unmapping. Sounds feasible, but not sure which roadblocks we would
> find on the way.

We can support migration/compaction with temporary mapping. The first
roadblock I've hit there was that migration allocates 4K destination
page and if we use it in secret map we are back to scrambling the direct
map into 4K pieces. It still sounds feasible but not as trivial :)

But again, there is nothing in the current form of secretmem that
prevents allocation from ZONE_MOVABLE.

> [...]
> 
> > I've hesitated whether to continue to use new flags to memfd_create() or to
> > add a new system call and I've decided to use a new system call after I've
> > started to look into man pages update. There would have been two completely
> > independent descriptions and I think it would have been very confusing.
> 
> This was also raised on lwn.net by "dullfire" [1]. I do wonder if it would
> be the right place as well.

I lean towards a dedicated syscall because, as I said, to me it would
seem less confusing.

> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/835342/#Comments
> 
> > 
> > Hiding secret memory mappings behind an anonymous file allows (ab)use of
> > the page cache for tracking pages allocated for the "secret" mappings as
> > well as using address_space_operations for e.g. page migration callbacks.
> > 
> > The anonymous file may be also used implicitly, like hugetlb files, to
> > implement mmap(MAP_SECRET) and use the secret memory areas with "native" mm
> > ABIs in the future.
> > 
> > As the fragmentation of the direct map was one of the major concerns raised
> > during the previous postings, I've added an amortizing cache of PMD-size
> > pages to each file descriptor that is used as an allocation pool for the
> > secret memory areas.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-11-02 17:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 236+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-24 13:28 [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:28 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:28 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:28 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:28 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] mm: add definition of PMD_PAGE_ORDER Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:28   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:28   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:28   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] mmap: make mlock_future_check() global Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29  4:58   ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-29  4:58     ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-29  4:58     ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-29  4:58     ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-29  4:58     ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-29 13:06     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:06       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:06       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:06       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:06       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 20:06       ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-29 20:06         ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-29 20:06         ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-29 20:06         ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-29 20:06         ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-30 10:35         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:35           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:35           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:35           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:35           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 20:11           ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-30 20:11             ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-30 20:11             ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-30 20:11             ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-09-30 20:11             ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2020-10-11  9:42             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-11  9:42               ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-11  9:42               ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-11  9:42               ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-11  9:42               ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] arch, mm: wire up memfd_secret system call were relevant Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] mm: secretmem: use PMD-size pages to amortize direct map fragmentation Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-25  7:41   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-25  7:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-25  7:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-25  7:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-25  9:00     ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-25  9:00       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-25  9:00       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-25  9:00       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-25  9:50       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-25  9:50         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-25  9:50         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-25  9:50         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-25 10:31         ` Mark Rutland
2020-09-25 10:31           ` Mark Rutland
2020-09-25 10:31           ` Mark Rutland
2020-09-25 10:31           ` Mark Rutland
2020-09-25 14:57           ` Tycho Andersen
2020-09-25 14:57             ` Tycho Andersen
2020-09-25 14:57             ` Tycho Andersen
2020-09-25 14:57             ` Tycho Andersen
2020-09-29 14:04           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 14:04             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 14:04             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 14:04             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:07         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:07           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:07           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:07           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:06       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:06         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:06         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:06         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:05     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:05       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:05       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 13:05       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 14:12       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-29 14:12         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-29 14:12         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-29 14:12         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-29 14:31         ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-29 14:31           ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-29 14:31           ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-29 14:31           ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-29 14:58         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 14:58           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 14:58           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 14:58           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 15:15           ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-29 15:15             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-29 15:15             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-29 15:15             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-30 10:27             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:27               ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:27               ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:27               ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 14:39               ` James Bottomley
2020-09-30 14:39                 ` James Bottomley
2020-09-30 14:39                 ` James Bottomley
2020-09-30 14:39                 ` James Bottomley
2020-09-30 14:45                 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-30 14:45                   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-30 14:45                   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-30 14:45                   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-30 15:17                   ` James Bottomley
2020-09-30 15:17                     ` James Bottomley
2020-09-30 15:17                     ` James Bottomley
2020-09-30 15:17                     ` James Bottomley
2020-09-30 15:25                     ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-30 15:25                       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-30 15:25                       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-30 15:25                       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-30 15:09               ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-30 15:09                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-30 15:09                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-30 15:09                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-10-01  8:14                 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-01  8:14                   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-01  8:14                   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-01  8:14                   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-29 15:03         ` James Bottomley
2020-09-29 15:03           ` James Bottomley
2020-09-29 15:03           ` James Bottomley
2020-09-29 15:03           ` James Bottomley
2020-09-30 10:20         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:20           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:20           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:20           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-30 10:43           ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-30 10:43             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-30 10:43             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-30 10:43             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-24 13:29 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] secretmem: test: add basic selftest for memfd_secret(2) Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:29   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:35 ` [PATCH] man2: new page describing memfd_secret() system call Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:35   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:35   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 13:35   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-24 14:55   ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-09-24 14:55     ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-09-24 14:55     ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-09-24 14:55     ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-10-03  9:32     ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-10-03  9:32       ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-10-03  9:32       ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-10-03  9:32       ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-10-05  7:32       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-05  7:32         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-05  7:32         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-10-05  7:32         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-16 21:01         ` [PATCH v2] memfd_secret.2: New " Alejandro Colomar
2020-11-16 21:01           ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-11-16 21:01           ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-11-16 21:01           ` Alejandro Colomar
2020-11-17  6:26           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-17  6:26             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-17  6:26             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-17  6:26             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-21 21:46             ` Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
2020-11-22  7:03               ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-25  2:34 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas Andrew Morton
2020-09-25  2:34   ` Andrew Morton
2020-09-25  2:34   ` Andrew Morton
2020-09-25  2:34   ` Andrew Morton
2020-09-25  6:42   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-25  6:42     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-25  6:42     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-09-25  6:42     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-01 11:09 ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-01 11:09   ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-01 11:09   ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-01 11:09   ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-02 15:40   ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-02 15:40     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-02 15:40     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-02 15:40     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-03 13:52     ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-03 13:52       ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-03 13:52       ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-03 13:52       ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-03 16:30       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-03 16:30         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-03 16:30         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-03 16:30         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-04 11:39         ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-04 11:39           ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-04 11:39           ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-04 11:39           ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-04 17:02           ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-04 17:02             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-04 17:02             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-04 17:02             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-09 10:41             ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-09 10:41               ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-09 10:41               ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-09 10:41               ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2020-11-02  9:11 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02  9:11   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02  9:11   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02  9:11   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02  9:31   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02  9:31     ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02  9:31     ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02  9:31     ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02 17:43   ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2020-11-02 17:43     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-02 17:43     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-02 17:43     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-02 17:51     ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02 17:51       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02 17:51       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-02 17:51       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-03  9:52       ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-03  9:52         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-03  9:52         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-03  9:52         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-03 10:11         ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-03 10:11           ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-03 10:11           ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-03 10:11           ` David Hildenbrand

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=20201102174308.GF4879@kernel.org \
    --to=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=elena.reshetova@intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=idan.yaniv@ibm.com \
    --cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tycho@tycho.ws \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.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.