Re: [PATCH v19 5/8] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas

[Mike Rapoport]

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 01:08:27PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 18-05-21 12:35:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 18.05.21 12:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > Although I have to say openly that I am not a great fan of VM_FAULT_OOM
> > > in general. It is usually a a wrong way to tell the handle the failure
> > > because it happens outside of the allocation context so you lose all the
> > > details (e.g. allocation constrains, numa policy etc.). Also whenever
> > > there is ENOMEM then the allocation itself has already made sure that
> > > all the reclaim attempts have been already depleted. Just consider an
> > > allocation with GFP_NOWAIT/NO_RETRY or similar to fail and propagate
> > > ENOMEM up the call stack. Turning that into the OOM killer sounds like a
> > > bad idea to me.  But that is a more general topic. I have tried to bring
> > > this up in the past but there was not much of an interest to fix it as
> > > it was not a pressing problem...
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm certainly interested; it would mean that we actually want to try
> > recovering from VM_FAULT_OOM in various cases, and as you state, we might
> > have to supply more information to make that work reliably.
> 
> Or maybe we want to get rid of VM_FAULT_OOM altogether... But this is
> really tangent to this discussion. The only relation is that this would
> be another place to check when somebody wants to go that direction.

If we are to get rid of VM_FAULT_OOM, vmf_error() would be updated and this
place will get the update automagically.

> > Having that said, I guess what we have here is just the same as when our
> > process fails to allocate a generic page table in __handle_mm_fault(), when
> > we fail p4d_alloc() and friends ...
> 
> From a quick look it is really similar in a sense that it effectively never
> happens and if it does then it certainly does the wrong thing. The point
> I was trying to make is that there is likely no need to go that way.

As David pointed out, failure to handle direct map in secretmem_fault() is
like any allocation failure in page fault handling and most of them result
in VM_FAULT_OOM, so I think that having vmf_error() in secretmem_fault() is
more consistent with the rest of the code than using VM_FAULT_SIGBUS.

Besides if the direct map manipulation failures would result in errors
other than -ENOMEM, having vmf_error() may prove useful.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.