From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] ioctl_userfaultfd.2: clarify the state of the uffdio_api structure on error
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:03:51 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231009090351.GL3303@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230919190206.388896-9-axelrasmussen@google.com>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 12:02:04PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> The old FIXME noted that the zeroing was done to differentiate the two
> EINVAL cases. It's possible something like this was true historically,
> but in current Linux we zero it in *both* EINVAL cases, so this is at
> least no longer true.
>
> After reading the code, I can't determine any clear reason why we zero
> it in some cases but not in others. So, some simple advice we can give
> userspace is: if an error occurs, treat the contents of the structure as
> unspecified. Just re-initialize it before retrying UFFDIO_API again.
In old kernels (e.g. 4.20 and I didn't go to check when this changed) we
had two -EINVALS: one when UFFDIO_API was called when
state != UFFD_STATE_WAIT_API
and another for API version or features mismatch and we
zeroed uffd_api struct only in the second case.
In the current code the first case does not exits anymore.
> Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@kernel.org>
> ---
> man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2 | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2 b/man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2
> index 1aa9654be..29dca1f6b 100644
> --- a/man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2
> +++ b/man2/ioctl_userfaultfd.2
> @@ -272,6 +272,14 @@ operation returns 0 on success.
> On error, \-1 is returned and
> .I errno
> is set to indicate the error.
> +If an error occurs,
> +the kernel may zero the provided
> +.I uffdio_api
> +structure.
> +The caller should treat its contents as unspecified,
> +and reinitialize it before re-attempting another
> +.B UFFDIO_API
> +call.
> Possible errors include:
> .TP
> .B EFAULT
> @@ -305,14 +313,6 @@ twice,
> the first time with no features set,
> is explicitly allowed
> as per the two-step feature detection handshake.
> -.\" FIXME In the above error case, the returned 'uffdio_api' structure is
> -.\" zeroed out. Why is this done? This should be explained in the manual page.
> -.\"
> -.\" Mike Rapoport:
> -.\" In my understanding the uffdio_api
> -.\" structure is zeroed to allow the caller
> -.\" to distinguish the reasons for -EINVAL.
> -.\"
> .SS UFFDIO_REGISTER
> (Since Linux 4.3.)
> Register a memory address range with the userfaultfd object.
> --
> 2.42.0.459.ge4e396fd5e-goog
>
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-09 9:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-19 19:01 [PATCH 00/10] userfaultfd man page updates Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-19 19:01 ` [PATCH 01/10] userfaultfd.2: briefly mention two-step feature handshake process Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-25 23:26 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-10-09 8:38 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-09-19 19:01 ` [PATCH 02/10] userfaultfd.2: reword to account for new fault resolution ioctls Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-25 23:29 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-10-09 8:39 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-09-19 19:01 ` [PATCH 03/10] userfaultfd.2: comment on feature detection in the example program Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-25 23:32 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-10-09 8:40 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-09-19 19:02 ` [PATCH 04/10] ioctl_userfaultfd.2: fix a few trivial mistakes Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-25 23:37 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-09-19 19:02 ` [PATCH 05/10] ioctl_userfaultfd.2: describe two-step feature handshake Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-25 23:44 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-10-09 8:42 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-09 10:58 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-09-19 19:02 ` [PATCH 06/10] ioctl_userfaultfd.2: describe missing UFFDIO_API feature flags Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-25 23:50 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-10-09 8:45 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-09 10:49 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-09-19 19:02 ` [PATCH 07/10] ioctl_userfaultfd.2: correct and update UFFDIO_API ioctl error codes Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-25 23:52 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-10-09 8:49 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-09 11:01 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-09-19 19:02 ` [PATCH 08/10] ioctl_userfaultfd.2: clarify the state of the uffdio_api structure on error Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-25 23:56 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-09-26 17:58 ` Axel Rasmussen
2023-10-09 9:03 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2023-09-19 19:02 ` [PATCH 09/10] ioctl_userfaultfd.2: fix / update UFFDIO_REGISTER error code list Axel Rasmussen
2023-09-19 19:02 ` [PATCH 10/10] ioctl_userfaultfd.2: document new UFFDIO_POISON ioctl Axel Rasmussen
2023-10-09 9:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-10 17:13 ` Axel Rasmussen
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=20231009090351.GL3303@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=alx@kernel.org \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=peterx@redhat.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).