Hello,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 07:51:16PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 02:51:21PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > When the process being tracked do mremap() without
> > UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMAP on the corresponding tracking uffd file
> > handle, we should not generate the remap event, and at the same
> > time we should clear all the uffd flags on the new VMA. Without
> > this patch, we can still have the VM_UFFD_MISSING|VM_UFFD_WP
> > flags on the new VMA even the fault handling process does not
> > even know the existance of the VMA.
> >
> > CC: Andrea Arcangeli <aarca...@redhat.com>
> > CC: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
> > CC: Mike Rapoport <r...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > CC: Kirill A. Shutemov <kir...@shutemov.name>
> > CC: Hugh Dickins <hu...@google.com>
> > CC: Pavel Emelyanov <xe...@virtuozzo.com>
> > CC: Pravin Shedge <pravin.shedge4li...@gmail.com>
> > CC: linux...@kvack.org
> > CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > fs/userfaultfd.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > index cd58939dc977..798ae8a438ff 100644
> > --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > @@ -740,6 +740,9 @@ void mremap_userfaultfd_prep(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > vm_ctx->ctx = ctx;
> > userfaultfd_ctx_get(ctx);
> > WRITE_ONCE(ctx->mmap_changing, true);
> > + } else if (ctx) {
> > + vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx = NULL_VM_UFFD_CTX;
> > + vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_UFFD_WP | VM_UFFD_MISSING);
Great catch Peter!
>
> My preference would be
>
> if (!ctx)
> return;
>
> if (ctx->features & UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_REMAP) {
> ...
> } else {
> ...
> }
>
> but I don't feel strongly about it.
Yes, it'd look nicer to run a single "ctx not null" check.
>
> I'd appreciate a comment in the code and with it
>
> Acked-by: Mike Rapoport <r...@linux.ibm.com>
>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarca...@redhat.com>
