From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755960AbcB2QPE (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:15:04 -0500
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:36028 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751979AbcB2QPC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:15:02 -0500
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:14:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <tipbot@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/x86/asm] uprobes: __create_xol_area() must nullify
 xol_mapping.fault
Message-ID: <20160229161457.GM6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160227221128.GA29565@redhat.com>
 <20160229114210.GK6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160229155114.GA1922@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160229155114.GA1922@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 04:51:14PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:11:28PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > @@ -1178,6 +1178,7 @@ static struct xol_area *__create_xol_area(unsigned long vaddr)
> > >  		goto free_area;
> > >
> > >  	area->xol_mapping.name = "[uprobes]";
> > > +	area->xol_mapping.fault = NULL;
> > >  	area->xol_mapping.pages = area->pages;
> >
> > Would not something like:
> >
> > 	area->xol_mapping = (struct vm_special_mapping){
> > 		.name = "[uprobes]",
> > 		.pages = area->pages,
> > 	};
> >
> > Be a more robust approach? That way, if someone adds more fields, they
> > at least get initialized (to 0).
> 
> OK, agreed...
> 
> Do you want me to send v2? Or incremental patch because this one is already in
> -tip tree.
> 
> Or do nothing unless you feel strongly about it. area->xol_mapping should go away,
> but we need a simple preparation in mm/mmap.c.

Yeah, no real strong feelings. Esp. if you're working on getting it
killed.