Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: read remote memory without the mmap lock where possible

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 11:19:12PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 12:04 PM Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > __access_remote_vm() takes mmap_read_lock() for the entire transfer and
> > uses get_user_pages_remote(), which faults pages in.  For the common
> > case of reading memory that is already resident -- /proc/PID/cmdline,
> > /proc/PID/environ, ptrace PEEK of resident pages -- the mmap lock is
> > unnecessary and is badly contended on large machines.
> >
> > Add an opportunistic, read-only fast path that transfers what it can
> > without the mmap lock.  For each address it takes the per-VMA lock with
> > lock_vma_under_rcu(), re-checks the read-side VMA permissions, and uses
> > folio_walk_start(..., FW_VMA_LOCKED) to grab a short-lived reference to
> > a present page before copying it out.  Anything non-trivial -- a not-
> > present page (needs faulting), a hugetlb or VM_IO/VM_PFNMAP mapping, or
> > a race with a VMA writer -- falls back to the existing mmap_lock path
> > for the remainder.
>
> I don't think we should be using per-VMA locks if the read spans
> multiple VMAs. Doing that would risk a possibility of reading
> inconsistent data since we are locking one VMA at a time. While we

Yeah, very true.

Suren has expounded on the possible cases that can occur elsewhere but you can
observe strange states like that.

You can see tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c for a sense of it and
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260426062718.1238437-1-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx/

Note that for e.g. madvise() this is exactly what we do.

> load and read VMA, its neighboring VMA can be unmapped and another one
> can be mapped in its place. So, our read spanning both VMAs will
> return inconsistent data. access_remote_vm_fast() can check if the
> entire read is contained within one VMA and if not, fall back to
> mmap_lock.

This would also vastly simplify the code. I expect most real-world cases are
like this anyway?

Cheers, Lorenzo