Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm: Introduce vm_uffd_ops API

Peter Xu
2025-10-06T21:02:38Z

On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 03:06:39PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> * Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> [251003 10:02]:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 04:39:50PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 01.10.25 16:35, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 03:58:14PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I briefly wondered whether we could use actual UFFD_FEATURE_* here, but they
> > > > > > > > > are rather unsuited for this case here (e.g., different feature flags for
> > > > > > > > > hugetlb support/shmem support etc).
>
> I think this supports the need for a code clean up before applying an
> API that generalizes it?
>
> I would expect the uffd code that needs the same uffd_feature would
> logically have the same uffd flags for the uffd_ops, but that's not the
> case here?
>
> Is this because uffd_feature != UFFD_FEATURE_* ... or are the internal
> UFFD_FEATURE_* not the same thing?
>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But reading "uffd_ioctls" below, can't we derive the suitable vma flags from
> > > > > > > > > the supported ioctls?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _UFFDIO_COPY | _UFDIO_ZEROPAGE -> VM_UFFD_MISSING
> > > > > > > > > _UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT -> VM_UFFD_WP
> > > > > > > > > _UFFDIO_CONTINUE -> VM_UFFD_MINOR
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes we can deduce that, but it'll be unclear then when one stares at a
> > > > > > > > bunch of ioctls and cannot easily digest the modes the memory type
> > > > > > > > supports. Here, the modes should be the most straightforward way to
> > > > > > > > describe the capability of a memory type.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I rather dislike the current split approach between vm-flags and ioctls.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I briefly thought about abstracting it for internal purposes further and
> > > > > > > just have some internal backend ("memory type") flags.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_MISSING -> _UFFDIO_COPY and VM_UFFD_MISSING
> > > > > > > UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_ZEROPAGE -> _UFDIO_ZEROPAGE
> > > > > > > UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_WP -> _UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT and VM_UFFD_WP
> > > > > > > UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_MINOR -> _UFFDIO_CONTINUE and VM_UFFD_MINOR
> > > > > > > UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_POISON -> _UFFDIO_POISON
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This layer of mapping can be helpful to some, but maybe confusing to
> > > > > > others.. who is familiar with existing userfaultfd definitions.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just wondering, is this confusing to you, and if so, which part?
> > > > >
> > > > > To me it makes perfect sense and cleans up this API and not have to sets of
> > > > > flags that are somehow interlinked.
> > > >
> > > > It adds the extra layer of mapping that will only be used in vm_uffd_ops
> > > > and the helper that will consume it.
> > >
> > > Agreed, while making the API cleaner. I don't easily see what's confusing
> > > about that, though.
> >
> > It will introduce another set of userfaultfd features, making it hard to
> > say what is the difference between the new set and UFFD_FEATURE_*.
>
> If it's not using UFFD_FEATURE_ defines, then please don't use
> uffd_feature for it in the uffd_ops. That seems like a recipe for
> confusion.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I think it can be done with a handful of LOC and avoid having to use VM_
> > > flags in this API.
> >
> > I waited for a few days, unfortunately we didn't get a second opinion.
>
> Sorry, been pretty busy here.
>
> If we can avoid the flags/features, then I'd rather that (the derived
> from uffd_ops == NULL for support). We can always add something else
> later.
>
> If we have to have a feature/flag setting, then please avoid using
> uffd_feature unless we use it with UFFD_FEATURE_ - which I think, we've
> ruled out?

Yes, there was no plan to use UFFD_FEATURE_* in vm_uffd_ops. It's because
UFFD_FEATURE_* was introduced to almost let userapp have a way to probe the
capability of the kernel, rather than the layer to describe what features
userfaultfd has.

For example, we have UFFD_FEATURE_MISSING_SHMEM declaring that "the current
kernel supports MISSING mode userfaultfd on shmem". This feature flag is
essentially of no use for any other memory types, hence not applicable to
vm_uffd_ops. OTOH, we don't have a feature flag to represent "userfaultfd
MISSING mode".

Thanks,

--
Peter Xu