Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:37:57 +0200 | From | Jan Kara <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: check VMA flags to avoid invalid PROT_NONE NUMA balancing |
| |
On Mon 10-10-16 09:28:28, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 09:47:12AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Yeah, so my cleanups where mostly concerned about mmap_sem locking and > > reducing number of places which cared about those. Regarding flags for > > get_user_pages() / get_vaddr_frames(), I agree that using flags argument > > as Linus suggests will make it easier to see what the callers actually > > want. So I'm for that. > > Great, thanks Jan! I have a draft patch that needs a little tweaking/further > testing but isn't too far off. > > One thing I am wondering about is whether functions that have write/force > parameters replaced with gup_flags should mask against (FOLL_WRITE | FOLL_FORCE) > to prevent callers from doing unexpected things with other FOLL_* flags? > > I'm inclined _not_ to because it adds a rather non-obvious restriction on this > parameter, reduces clarity about which flags are actually being used (which is > the point of the patch in the first place), and the caller ought to know what > they are doing.
Yeah, just leave flags as is. There is no strong reason to restrict them.
Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> SUSE Labs, CR
|  |