On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:01:51AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 04:24:08AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:22:54PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 04:14:24AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > + if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->mprotect) {
> > > > > + error = vma->vm_ops->mprotect(vma, nstart, tmp,
> > > > > prot);
> > > > > + if (error)
> > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > + }
> > >
> > > Based on "... and then the vma owner can do whatever it needs to before
> > > calling mprotect_fixup(), which is already not static", my interpretation
> > > is that Matthew's intent was to do:
> > >
> > > if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->mprotect)
> > > error = = vma->vm_ops->mprotect(vma, nstart, tmp,
> > > prot);
> > > else
> > > error = mprotect_fixup(vma, &prev, nstart, tmp,
> > > newflags);
> > > if (error)
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > i.e. make .mprotect() a full replacement as opposed to a prereq hook.
> >
> > Yes, it was. I was just looking at the next patch to be sure this was
> > how I'd been misunderstood.
>
> I'm don't get this part. If mprotect_fixup is called in the tail of the
> callback, why it has to be called inside the callback and not be called
> after the callback?
Because that's how every other VM operation works. Look at your
implementation of get_unmapped_area() for example.
