LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Helsley <>
To: Hugh Dickins <>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <>,
	Miklos Szeredi <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	William Lee Irwin III <>,
	Nick Piggin <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,, linux-mm <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sys_remap_file_pages: fix ->vm_file accounting
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:16:38 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1202343398.9062.253.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 20:33 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 
> > So I have to try to find another bug ;) Suppose that ->load_binary() does
> > a series of do_mmap(MAP_EXECUTABLE). It is possible that mmap_region() can
> > merge 2 vmas. In that case we "leak" ->num_exe_file_vmas. Unless I missed
> > something, mmap_region() should do removed_exe_file_vma() when vma_merge()
> > succeds (near fput(file)).
> Or there's the complementary case of a VM_EXECUTABLE vma being
> split in two, for example by an mprotect of a part of it.
> Sorry, Matt, I don't like your patch at all.  It seems to add a fair
> amount of ugliness and unmaintainablity, all for a peculiar MVFS case

I thought that getting rid of the separate versions of proc_exe_link()
improved maintainability. Do you have any specific details on what you
think makes the code introduced by the patch unmaintainable?

> (you've tried to argue other advantages, but not always convinced!).

Yup -- looking at how the VM_EXECUTABLE flag affects the vma walk it's
clear one of my arguments was wrong. So I can't blame you for being
unconvinced by that. :)

I still think it would help any stacking filesystems that can't use the
solution adopted by unionfs.

> And I found it quite hard to see where the crucial difference comes.
> I guess it's that MVFS changes vma->vm_file in its ->mmap?  Well, if


> MVFS does that, maybe something else does that too, but precisely to
> rely on the present behaviour of /proc/pid/exe - so in fixing for
> MVFS, we'd be breaking that hypothetical other?

	I'm not completely certain that I understand your point. Are you
suggesting that some hypothetical code would want to use this "quirk"
of /proc/pid/exe for a legitimate purpose?

	Assuming that is your point, I thought my non-hypothetical java example
clearly demonstrated that at least one non-hypothetical program doesn't
expect the "quirk" and breaks because of it. Frankly,
given /proc/pid/exe's output in the non-stacking case, I can't see how
its output in the stacking case we're discussing could be considered
anything but buggy.

	-Matt Helsley

  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-07  0:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-30 14:20 Oleg Nesterov
2008-01-30 16:55 ` Miklos Szeredi
2008-01-30 17:26   ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-02-02 20:52     ` Matt Helsley
2008-02-02 21:17     ` Matt Helsley
2008-02-03 18:21       ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-02-06 20:33         ` Hugh Dickins
2008-02-07  0:16           ` Matt Helsley [this message]
2008-02-07 16:40             ` Hugh Dickins
2008-02-03 18:29     ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-02-06 20:13       ` Hugh Dickins
2008-02-11 10:15         ` Oleg Nesterov

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1202343398.9062.253.camel@localhost.localdomain \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] sys_remap_file_pages: fix ->vm_file accounting' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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).