From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Killing reliance on struct page->mapping
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:48:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180131174840.GF2912@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <111f49c1-02d1-3355-e403-a8f91c0191e2@huawei.com>
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:09:48PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 30/01/18 02:43, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Maybe we can kill page->mapping altogether as a result of this. However this is
> > not my motivation at this time.
>
> We had a discussion some time ago
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/07/07/7
>
> where you advised to use it for tracking pmalloc pages vs area, which
> generated this patch:
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/01/24/7
>
> Could you please comment what wold happen to the shortcut from struct
> page to vm_struct that this patch is now introducing?
Sadly struct page fields means different thing depending on the context
in which the page is use. This is confusing i know. So when i say kill
page->mapping i am not saying shrink the struct page and remove that
field, i am saying maybe we can kill current user of page->mapping
for regular process page (ie page that are in some mmap() area of a
process).
Other use of that field in different context like yours are not affected
by this change and can ignore it alltogether.
Hope this clarify it :)
Cheers,
J�r�me
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Killing reliance on struct page->mapping
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:48:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180131174840.GF2912@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <111f49c1-02d1-3355-e403-a8f91c0191e2@huawei.com>
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:09:48PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 30/01/18 02:43, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Maybe we can kill page->mapping altogether as a result of this. However this is
> > not my motivation at this time.
>
> We had a discussion some time ago
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/07/07/7
>
> where you advised to use it for tracking pmalloc pages vs area, which
> generated this patch:
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/01/24/7
>
> Could you please comment what wold happen to the shortcut from struct
> page to vm_struct that this patch is now introducing?
Sadly struct page fields means different thing depending on the context
in which the page is use. This is confusing i know. So when i say kill
page->mapping i am not saying shrink the struct page and remove that
field, i am saying maybe we can kill current user of page->mapping
for regular process page (ie page that are in some mmap() area of a
process).
Other use of that field in different context like yours are not affected
by this change and can ignore it alltogether.
Hope this clarify it :)
Cheers,
J�r�me
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Killing reliance on struct page->mapping
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:48:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180131174840.GF2912@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <111f49c1-02d1-3355-e403-a8f91c0191e2@huawei.com>
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:09:48PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 30/01/18 02:43, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Maybe we can kill page->mapping altogether as a result of this. However this is
> > not my motivation at this time.
>
> We had a discussion some time ago
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/07/07/7
>
> where you advised to use it for tracking pmalloc pages vs area, which
> generated this patch:
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/01/24/7
>
> Could you please comment what wold happen to the shortcut from struct
> page to vm_struct that this patch is now introducing?
Sadly struct page fields means different thing depending on the context
in which the page is use. This is confusing i know. So when i say kill
page->mapping i am not saying shrink the struct page and remove that
field, i am saying maybe we can kill current user of page->mapping
for regular process page (ie page that are in some mmap() area of a
process).
Other use of that field in different context like yours are not affected
by this change and can ignore it alltogether.
Hope this clarify it :)
Cheers,
Jerome
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-31 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-30 0:43 [LSF/MM TOPIC] Killing reliance on struct page->mapping Jerome Glisse
2018-01-30 0:43 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-01-30 0:43 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-01-31 16:56 ` Al Viro
2018-01-31 16:56 ` Al Viro
2018-01-31 17:42 ` [Lsf-pc] " Jerome Glisse
2018-01-31 17:42 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-01-31 17:42 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-01-31 17:55 ` [Lsf-pc] " Al Viro
2018-01-31 17:55 ` Al Viro
2018-01-31 18:13 ` [Lsf-pc] " Jerome Glisse
2018-01-31 18:13 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-01-31 18:13 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-02-01 15:34 ` [Lsf-pc] " Jens Axboe
2018-02-01 15:34 ` Jens Axboe
2018-02-01 15:57 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-02-01 15:57 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-02-01 15:57 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-02-01 16:00 ` Jens Axboe
2018-02-01 16:00 ` Jens Axboe
2018-02-01 16:33 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-02-01 16:33 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-02-01 16:33 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-02-01 12:27 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-02-01 12:27 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-02-01 13:22 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-02-01 13:22 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-02-01 13:22 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-01-31 17:09 ` Igor Stoppa
2018-01-31 17:09 ` Igor Stoppa
2018-01-31 17:09 ` Igor Stoppa
2018-01-31 17:48 ` Jerome Glisse [this message]
2018-01-31 17:48 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-01-31 17:48 ` Jerome Glisse
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=20180131174840.GF2912@redhat.com \
--to=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=igor.stoppa@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.