From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754053AbdBAW1Z (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:27:25 -0500
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:42314 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753859AbdBAW1W (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:27:22 -0500
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:27:20 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: add event for
 exit() notification
Message-Id: <20170201142720.2d3f06ad1ba4410995e5ae0d@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170201063506.GA7921@rapoport-lnx>
References: <1485542673-24387-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <1485542673-24387-4-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <20170131164132.439f9d30e3a9b3c79bcada3a@linux-foundation.org>
        <20170201063506.GA7921@rapoport-lnx>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:35:07 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 04:41:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:44:31 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Allow userfaultfd monitor track termination of the processes that have
> > > memory backed by the uffd.
> > > 
> > > --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > > +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > > @@ -774,6 +774,30 @@ void userfaultfd_unmap_complete(struct mm_struct *mm, struct list_head *uf)
> > >  	}
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +void userfaultfd_exit(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct vm_area_struct *vma = mm->mmap;
> > > +
> > > +	while (vma) {
> > > +		struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx = vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx;
> > > +
> > > +		if (ctx && (ctx->features & UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT)) {
> > > +			struct userfaultfd_wait_queue ewq;
> > > +
> > > +			userfaultfd_ctx_get(ctx);
> > > +
> > > +			msg_init(&ewq.msg);
> > > +			ewq.msg.event = UFFD_EVENT_EXIT;
> > > +
> > > +			userfaultfd_event_wait_completion(ctx, &ewq);
> > > +
> > > +			ctx->features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT;
> > > +		}
> > > +
> > > +		vma = vma->vm_next;
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > 
> > And we can do the vma walk without locking because the caller (exit_mm)
> > knows it now has exclusive access.  Worth a comment?
>  
> Sure, will add. Do you prefer an incremental patch or update this one?

Either is OK.  I routinely turn replacement patches into deltas so I
and others can see what changed.