public inbox for linux-mm@kvack.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
To: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,  rppt@kernel.org,
	shuah@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,  linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, skhawaja@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] liveupdate: prevent double management of files
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 13:33:31 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALzav=eybgJwMQEtvSi2bUv8u7cic6d45r4wFZdZiKFFrrLJfQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2vxzikajacgc.fsf@kernel.org>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 1:20 PM Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org> wrote:

> For memfd and hugetlb at least, we serialize the _inode_ not the file.
> The inode has the contents that we care to preserve.
>
> So if two FDs point to the same inode, this will break. You can do this
> by first creating a memfd and then by opening "/proc/self/fd/<fd>". Then
> you would be able to trigger the preservation twice, causing all sorts
> of problems. Same on the retrieve side.

> So unless I am missing something, I don't think this approach will work.
> As much as I hate to suggest it, I think we need to move this check to
> each caller so they can find out the object they need to serialize and
> check if it already is.

I think LUO can still enforce that the file is not preserved twice.
HugeTLB and memfd's preserve() functions just need to also check that
the associated inode has not already been preserved?


  reply	other threads:[~2026-03-25 20:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-25 18:20 [PATCH v3 0/2] liveupdate: prevent double preservation Pasha Tatashin
2026-03-25 18:20 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] liveupdate: prevent double management of files Pasha Tatashin
2026-03-25 18:56   ` Mike Rapoport
2026-03-25 20:20   ` Pratyush Yadav
2026-03-25 20:33     ` David Matlack [this message]
2026-03-25 21:08       ` Pasha Tatashin
2026-03-25 21:35         ` Pasha Tatashin
2026-03-26  9:04         ` Mike Rapoport
2026-03-25 18:20 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] selftests: liveupdate: add test for double preservation Pasha Tatashin
2026-03-25 23:14 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] liveupdate: prevent " Andrew Morton

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='CALzav=eybgJwMQEtvSi2bUv8u7cic6d45r4wFZdZiKFFrrLJfQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
    --cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=skhawaja@google.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