On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 04:06:27PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> The postcopy live snapshoitting was the #1 use case so it's hard not
> to mention it, but there's still other interesting userland use cases
> of uffd-wp with various users already testing it in their apps, that
> may ultimately
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 08:06:22PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> I just thought that there might be some insinuation, as you mentioned VMware
> by name. My response was half-jokingly and should have had a smiley to
> prevent you from wasting your time on the explanation.
No problem, actually I
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:05:22PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 2021, at 10:45 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>> I just don't like to slow down a feature required in the future for
>>> implementing postcopy live snapshotting or
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:05:22PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 2021, at 10:45 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > I just don't like to slow down a feature required in the future for
> > implementing postcopy live snapshotting or other snapshots to userland
> > processes (for the non-KVM
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:07:51PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 2021, at 7:08 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> >> index ab709023e9aa..c08c4055b051 100644
> >> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
>
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 7:08 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
>> index ab709023e9aa..c08c4055b051 100644
>> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
>> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
>> @@ -75,7 +75,8 @@ static unsigned long
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 10:45 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 09:26:33PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> I would feel more comfortable if you provide patches for uffd-wp. If you
>> want, I will do it, but I restate that I do not feel comfortable with this
>> solution (worried as
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 01:41:34PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> Agreed. I didn't mention uffd_wp check (which I actually mentioned in the
> reply
> to v1 patchset) here only because the uffd_wp check is pure optimization;
> while
Agreed it's a pure optimization.
Only if we used the group lock to
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 09:26:33PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> I would feel more comfortable if you provide patches for uffd-wp. If you
> want, I will do it, but I restate that I do not feel comfortable with this
> solution (worried as it seems a bit ad-hoc and might leave out a scenario
> we all
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 01:08:48PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 10:08:13AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > > index ab709023e9aa..c08c4055b051 100644
> > > ---
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 10:08:13AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > index ab709023e9aa..c08c4055b051 100644
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -75,7 +75,8 @@ static unsigned
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 09:58:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:24:38PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:22:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > >
> > > > The scenario that
On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> index ab709023e9aa..c08c4055b051 100644
> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> @@ -75,7 +75,8 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct
> *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 12:52:48AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 2021, at 12:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:24:38PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >> The problematic one not pictured is the one of the wrprotect that has
> >> to be running in another
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 12:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:24:38PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:22:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>
The scenario that happens in
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:24:38PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:22:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >
> > > The scenario that happens in selftests/vm/userfaultfd is as follows:
> > >
> > > cpu0
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 12:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:24:38PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> The problematic one not pictured is the one of the wrprotect that has
>> to be running in another CPU which is also isn't picture above. More
>> accurate traces are
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:24:38PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> The problematic one not pictured is the one of the wrprotect that has
> to be running in another CPU which is also isn't picture above. More
> accurate traces are posted later in the thread.
What thread? I don't seem to have
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 1:01 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 08:39:37PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 2021, at 12:19 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 07:35:06PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Andrea Arcangeli
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 08:39:37PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 2021, at 12:19 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 07:35:06PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>> On Jan 4, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 04,
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 12:19 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 07:35:06PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:22:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 07:35:06PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:22:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>
> >>> The scenario
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:22:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>>> The scenario that happens in selftests/vm/userfaultfd is as follows:
>>>
>>> cpu0
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:22:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
> > The scenario that happens in selftests/vm/userfaultfd is as follows:
> >
> > cpu0cpu1cpu2
> >
On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> The scenario that happens in selftests/vm/userfaultfd is as follows:
>
> cpu0 cpu1cpu2
>
>
From: Nadav Amit
Userfaultfd self-test fails occasionally, indicating a memory
corruption.
Analyzing this problem indicates that there is a real bug since
mmap_lock is only taken for read in mwriteprotect_range() and defers
flushes, and since there is insufficient consideration of concurrent
26 matches
Mail list logo
