From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=OHp2=HN=lists.01.org=linux-nvdimm-bounces@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID,
	DKIM_SIGNED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFCDC433E0
	for <linux-nvdimm@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:30:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ml01.01.org (ml01.01.org [198.145.21.10])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83AF664E26
	for <linux-nvdimm@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:30:06 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 83AF664E26
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org
Received: from ml01.vlan13.01.org (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57436100EA2A4;
	Thu, 11 Feb 2021 03:30:06 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=rppt@kernel.org; receiver=<UNKNOWN> 
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89CBA100EA2A1
	for <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 03:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C89C601FF;
	Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:29:50 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
	s=k20201202; t=1613043004;
	bh=JtJHuqvnhxNyM0cSP3Qe3tSMfjdJGVz3S+tERJXfo4M=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=PEXygoi6R9pVpb0NPj47+Ko3f1Ah21CxDjueYWnlQAO/uRVErOda0UIyi9V6v9rYs
	 6NXsauRjapfptBwBvo70ls3AAnv08VDhhWUxi7yLuKhQOTQa31mGOOLAdVpQ8B16uZ
	 SzyBJMAmkReTwWmxT4Tjvg8ZAL2HyRIawjk70IsH5WPDvqJ9dQdETycAuzkDATgNju
	 gOL/aozy2VFMdzBaSlauwv+UBb82EKAQG3vL++P2TTqj9pWtgKqRk4VcEXI1wyFYG+
	 5DJMf90zHF2E2ie9ZUU2VlL1vbBwnzXXk30WzSnRm7nZHI33uXE/tbEgH+TreMHc5x
	 BblQZ8rwiMN2Q==
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:29:46 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 07/10] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to
 create "secret" memory areas
Message-ID: <20210211112946.GJ242749@kernel.org>
References: <YCEXMgXItY7xMbIS@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20210208212605.GX242749@kernel.org>
 <YCJMDBss8Qhha7g9@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20210209090938.GP299309@linux.ibm.com>
 <YCKLVzBR62+NtvyF@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20210211071319.GF242749@kernel.org>
 <YCTtSrCEvuBug2ap@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <0d66baec-1898-987b-7eaf-68a015c027ff@redhat.com>
 <YCT6+9YW474IaKrm@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <e7f1b5eb-a4c8-2772-6333-0a72c22b0c51@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e7f1b5eb-a4c8-2772-6333-0a72c22b0c51@redhat.com>
Message-ID-Hash: 4MXCPLFUD2YQD4TGTL63NEZYSVPNID6N
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4MXCPLFUD2YQD4TGTL63NEZYSVPNID6N
X-MailFrom: rppt@kernel.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: nonmember-moderation
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation
CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, 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>, 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>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Tycho Anders
 en <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, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Linux-nvdimm developer list." <linux-nvdimm.lists.01.org>
Archived-At: <https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org/message/4MXCPLFUD2YQD4TGTL63NEZYSVPNID6N/>
List-Archive: <https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org/>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-nvdimm-request@lists.01.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-nvdimm-join@lists.01.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02:07AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
> Another thought regarding "doesn't have _any_ backing storage"
> 
> What are the right semantics when it comes to memory accounting/commit?
> 
> As secretmem does not have
> a) any backing storage
> b) cannot go to swap
> 
> The MAP_NORESERVE vs. !MAP_NORESERVE handling gets a little unclear. Why
> "reserve swap space" if the allocations cannot ever go to swap? Sure, we
> want to "reserve physical memory", but in contrast to other users that can
> go to swap.
> 
> Of course, this is only relevant for MAP_PRIVATE secretmem mappings. Other
> MAP_SHARED assumes there is no need for reserving swap space as it can just
> go to the backing storage. (yeah, tmpfs/shmem is weird in that regard as
> well, but again, it's a bit different)

In that sense seceremem is as weird as tmpfs and it only allows MAP_SHARED.

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