From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965636AbaFQQg7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:36:59 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com ([209.85.213.180]:53061 "EHLO mail-ig0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964788AbaFQQg4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:36:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1402655819-14325-1-git-send-email-dh.herrmann@gmail.com> <53A01049.6020502@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:36:55 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] File Sealing & memfd_create() From: David Herrmann To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Greg KH , Florian Weimer , Hugh Dickins , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Lennart Poettering , Andrew Morton , Linux API , Michael Kerrisk , Kay Sievers , John Stultz , Linus Torvalds , Daniel Mack , Ryan Lortie , Linux FS Devel , Tony Battersby Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Can you summarize why holes can't be reliably backed by the zero page? To answer this, I will quote Hugh from "PATCH v2 1/3": > We do already use the ZERO_PAGE instead of allocating when it's a > simple read; and on the face of it, we could extend that to mmap > once the file is sealed. But I am rather afraid to do so - for > many years there was an mmap /dev/zero case which did that, but > it was an easily forgotten case which caught us out at least > once, so I'm reluctant to reintroduce it now for sealing. > > Anyway, I don't expect you to resolve the issue of sealed holes: > that's very much my territory, to give you support on. Holes can be avoided with a simple fallocate(). I don't understand why I should make SEAL_WRITE do the fallocate for the caller. During the discussion of memfd_create() I was told to drop the "size" parameter, because it is redundant. I don't see how this implicit fallocate() does not fall into the same category? Thanks David