From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
luto@kernel.org, jun.nakajima@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
ak@linux.intel.com, david@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/13] mm: Introduce memfile_notifier
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:45:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YkNTvFqWI5F5w+DW@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220310140911.50924-3-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/Makefile b/mm/Makefile
> index 70d4309c9ce3..f628256dce0d 100644
> +void memfile_notifier_invalidate(struct memfile_notifier_list *list,
> + pgoff_t start, pgoff_t end)
> +{
> + struct memfile_notifier *notifier;
> + int id;
> +
> + id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
> + list_for_each_entry_srcu(notifier, &list->head, list,
> + srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) {
> + if (notifier->ops && notifier->ops->invalidate)
Any reason notifier->ops isn't mandatory?
> + notifier->ops->invalidate(notifier, start, end);
> + }
> + srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
> +}
> +
> +void memfile_notifier_fallocate(struct memfile_notifier_list *list,
> + pgoff_t start, pgoff_t end)
> +{
> + struct memfile_notifier *notifier;
> + int id;
> +
> + id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
> + list_for_each_entry_srcu(notifier, &list->head, list,
> + srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) {
> + if (notifier->ops && notifier->ops->fallocate)
> + notifier->ops->fallocate(notifier, start, end);
> + }
> + srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
> +}
> +
> +void memfile_register_backing_store(struct memfile_backing_store *bs)
> +{
> + BUG_ON(!bs || !bs->get_notifier_list);
> +
> + list_add_tail(&bs->list, &backing_store_list);
> +}
> +
> +void memfile_unregister_backing_store(struct memfile_backing_store *bs)
> +{
> + list_del(&bs->list);
Allowing unregistration of a backing store is broken. Using the _safe() variant
is not sufficient to guard against concurrent modification. I don't see any reason
to support this out of the gate, the only reason to support unregistering a backing
store is if the backing store is implemented as a module, and AFAIK none of the
backing stores we plan on supporting initially support being built as a module.
These aren't exported, so it's not like that's even possible. Registration would
also be broken if modules are allowed, I'm pretty sure module init doesn't run
under a global lock.
We can always add this complexity if it's needed in the future, but for now the
easiest thing would be to tag memfile_register_backing_store() with __init and
make backing_store_list __ro_after_init.
> +}
> +
> +static int memfile_get_notifier_info(struct inode *inode,
> + struct memfile_notifier_list **list,
> + struct memfile_pfn_ops **ops)
> +{
> + struct memfile_backing_store *bs, *iter;
> + struct memfile_notifier_list *tmp;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(bs, iter, &backing_store_list, list) {
> + tmp = bs->get_notifier_list(inode);
> + if (tmp) {
> + *list = tmp;
> + if (ops)
> + *ops = &bs->pfn_ops;
> + return 0;
> + }
> + }
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +}
> +
> +int memfile_register_notifier(struct inode *inode,
Taking an inode is a bit odd from a user perspective. Any reason not to take a
"struct file *" and get the inode here? That would give callers a hint that they
need to hold a reference to the file for the lifetime of the registration.
> + struct memfile_notifier *notifier,
> + struct memfile_pfn_ops **pfn_ops)
> +{
> + struct memfile_notifier_list *list;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!inode || !notifier | !pfn_ops)
Bitwise | instead of logical ||. But IMO taking in a pfn_ops pointer is silly.
More below.
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ret = memfile_get_notifier_info(inode, &list, pfn_ops);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + spin_lock(&list->lock);
> + list_add_rcu(¬ifier->list, &list->head);
> + spin_unlock(&list->lock);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memfile_register_notifier);
> +
> +void memfile_unregister_notifier(struct inode *inode,
> + struct memfile_notifier *notifier)
> +{
> + struct memfile_notifier_list *list;
> +
> + if (!inode || !notifier)
> + return;
> +
> + BUG_ON(memfile_get_notifier_info(inode, &list, NULL));
Eww. Rather than force the caller to provide the inode/file and the notifier,
what about grabbing the backing store itself in the notifier?
struct memfile_notifier {
struct list_head list;
struct memfile_notifier_ops *ops;
struct memfile_backing_store *bs;
};
That also helps avoid confusing between "ops" and "pfn_ops". IMO, exposing
memfile_backing_store to the caller isn't a big deal, and is preferable to having
to rewalk multiple lists just to delete a notifier.
Then this can become:
void memfile_unregister_notifier(struct memfile_notifier *notifier)
{
spin_lock(¬ifier->bs->list->lock);
list_del_rcu(¬ifier->list);
spin_unlock(¬ifier->bs->list->lock);
synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
}
and registration can be:
int memfile_register_notifier(const struct file *file,
struct memfile_notifier *notifier)
{
struct memfile_notifier_list *list;
struct memfile_backing_store *bs;
int ret;
if (!file || !notifier)
return -EINVAL;
list_for_each_entry(bs, &backing_store_list, list) {
list = bs->get_notifier_list(file_inode(file));
if (list) {
notifier->bs = bs;
spin_lock(&list->lock);
list_add_rcu(¬ifier->list, &list->head);
spin_unlock(&list->lock);
return 0;
}
}
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-29 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 117+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-10 14:08 [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:08 ` [PATCH v5 01/13] mm/memfd: Introduce MFD_INACCESSIBLE flag Chao Peng
2022-04-11 15:10 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-12 13:11 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-23 5:43 ` Vishal Annapurve
2022-04-24 8:15 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 02/13] mm: Introduce memfile_notifier Chao Peng
2022-03-29 18:45 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-04-08 12:54 ` Chao Peng
[not found] ` <20220412143654.6313-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2022-04-13 6:47 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 03/13] mm/shmem: Support memfile_notifier Chao Peng
2022-03-10 23:08 ` Dave Chinner
2022-03-11 8:42 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-11 15:26 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-12 13:12 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-19 22:40 ` Vishal Annapurve
2022-04-20 3:24 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 04/13] mm/shmem: Restrict MFD_INACCESSIBLE memory against RLIMIT_MEMLOCK Chao Peng
2022-04-07 16:05 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-07 17:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-04-08 17:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-08 18:54 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-12 14:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-04-12 21:27 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-04-13 16:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-13 16:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-13 17:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-04-25 14:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-08 13:02 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-11 15:34 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-12 5:14 ` Hugh Dickins
2022-04-11 15:32 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-12 13:39 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-12 19:28 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-13 9:15 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 05/13] KVM: Extend the memslot to support fd-based private memory Chao Peng
2022-03-28 21:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-08 13:21 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-28 21:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-08 13:46 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-08 17:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 06/13] KVM: Use kvm_userspace_memory_region_ext Chao Peng
2022-03-28 22:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-08 13:58 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 07/13] KVM: Add KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_ERROR exit Chao Peng
2022-03-28 22:33 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-08 13:59 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 08/13] KVM: Use memfile_pfn_ops to obtain pfn for private pages Chao Peng
2022-03-28 23:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-08 14:07 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-28 12:37 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 09/13] KVM: Handle page fault for private memory Chao Peng
2022-03-29 1:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-12 12:10 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 10/13] KVM: Register private memslot to memory backing store Chao Peng
2022-03-29 19:01 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-12 12:40 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 11/13] KVM: Zap existing KVM mappings when pages changed in the private fd Chao Peng
2022-03-29 19:23 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-12 12:43 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-05 23:45 ` Michael Roth
2022-04-08 3:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-19 22:43 ` Vishal Annapurve
2022-04-20 3:17 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 12/13] KVM: Expose KVM_MEM_PRIVATE Chao Peng
2022-03-29 19:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-12 12:56 ` Chao Peng
2022-03-10 14:09 ` [PATCH v5 13/13] memfd_create.2: Describe MFD_INACCESSIBLE flag Chao Peng
2022-03-24 15:51 ` [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory Quentin Perret
2022-03-28 17:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-28 18:00 ` Quentin Perret
2022-03-28 18:58 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-29 17:01 ` Quentin Perret
2022-03-30 8:58 ` Steven Price
2022-03-30 10:39 ` Quentin Perret
2022-03-30 17:58 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-31 16:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-04-01 14:59 ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-01 17:14 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-01 18:03 ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-01 18:24 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-01 19:56 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-04-04 15:01 ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-04 17:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-04 22:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-04-05 10:36 ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-05 17:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-04-05 18:30 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-06 18:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-04-06 13:05 ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-05 18:03 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-06 10:34 ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-22 10:56 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-22 11:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-04-24 8:07 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-24 16:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-04-25 13:40 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-25 14:52 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-04-25 20:30 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-06-10 19:18 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-06-10 19:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-28 12:29 ` Chao Peng
2022-05-03 11:12 ` Quentin Perret
2022-05-09 22:30 ` Michael Roth
2022-05-09 23:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-07-21 20:05 ` Gupta, Pankaj
2022-07-21 21:19 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-07-21 21:36 ` Gupta, Pankaj
2022-07-23 3:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-07-25 9:19 ` Gupta, Pankaj
2022-03-30 16:18 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-28 20:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-03-28 22:48 ` Nakajima, Jun
2022-03-29 0:04 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-08 21:35 ` Vishal Annapurve
2022-04-12 13:00 ` Chao Peng
2022-04-12 19:58 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
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=YkNTvFqWI5F5w+DW@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mail@maciej.szmigiero.name \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vannapurve@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).